Why do Indians do so well abroad?

 

Vikram Patel writes: It has less to do with their Indian heritage and more to do with Western countries’ commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion

In these times of hyper-nationalism, inevitably fuelled by the 75th anniversary of independence, I have been flooded with messages, forwarded by patriotic relatives, friends and random persons, extolling India’s greatness. One such message was provocatively titled “Who’s running the World?” (with no apologies to Noam Chomsky). Here is a synopsis: One day, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi were arguing about who was in charge of the world. After much deliberation, Modi replied that all he knew was that the leading CEOs of the world were Indian. The message then rattles off a list of companies, many of which are household names (think Google and Microsoft) and, after 21 such examples, a shorter list of Indians who have ascended to political heights in other countries. And this was before a person of Indian origin ascended to the helm of Twitter and the omission of persons of Indian origin who have headed prestigious global NGOs such as Medicins sans Frontiers and Amnesty International or headed US states or European countries (Portugal and Ireland and some predict the UK in the near future!).

There is little doubt that persons born in India out-perform all other nationalities in the sheer scale of their success when they migrate to the “West” (essentially, Europe and North America). Earlier this week, I read that people of Indian origin top the list of US unicorns’ immigrant founders. But I wondered if these observations reflected more on the “greatness” of the country they had migrated to rather than India herself? What struck me was the discrepancy between a few million Indians doing so well abroad, the most celebrated of whom were taking their companies (and, in some instances, countries) to dizzying heights, while India herself, despite being home to over a billion fellow Indians, continues to languish at the bottom of virtually every list of countries ranked on desirable goals such as human development, income equality, food security, gender equality, air quality, transparency, universal health coverage, literacy and sanitation. In the World Happiness Report 2020, we rank alongside Afghanistan, South Sudan and Yemen. And what’s more worrying, our rankings on these lists has been falling in recent years.

I know I’m not alone in wondering about this conundrum. I have reflected on this a lot, drawing upon my own personal experience of working as a public health scientist in India and in the US and UK, supplemented with stories of achievements of migrant Indians in the academy, and of relatives and friends who left India with just pennies in their pockets. I have come to conclude that the principal reason Indians do so well when they migrate to the West has less to do with their Indian heritage than the ways in which their adopted countries have shaped their societies, at the heart of which is their explicit commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion. Indeed, if it were not for this commitment, it would have been simply impossible for people from a completely foreign land, who embrace alien religions and cultures, to achieve such exalted success in a single-generation. It is these features which account for the meteoric rise of migrants from India.

Of course, it wasn’t always like this. Diversity, equity and inclusion were certainly not prominent in the history of the West, dominated by genocide, slavery, colonialism and white supremacy. But, in the past half-century, these countries actively sought to reimagine their societies as beacons of multiculturalism where people of all hues and ethnicities could realise the possibility of achieving the highest offices in the land. It is surely ironic, then, that those fleeing India are leaving a land which was, historically, the most diverse nation in the world. India’s singular claim to greatness lay in its unparalleled history of multiculturalism, a mosaic of diverse people far richer and much older than the European Union or the countries created by European settlers after murdering the indigenous peoples. A land where thousands of languages were spoken, which birthed four of the world’s major religions and gave shelter to the others, a place which assimilated its invaders to further enrich its melting pot. Despite the persistence of ancient prejudices and the considerable work still to be done to achieve equity and inclusion for all her diverse peoples, India remains an audacious and unique civilisational feat.

But that India now seems to be fading away as the fault-lines between communities whose ancestries and histories are inseparably intertwined are being inexorably, and deliberately, widened. I watch with despair as violence, both symbolic and actual, is replacing the arts, culture and faith as the language of identity, and homogenisation is replacing diversity as the defining feature of our nationhood. I watch with sorrow the increasing marginalisation and falling representation of minorities in public institutions (barring prisons), the demonisation of diverse food habits and customs, the rewriting of history to reframe some of our customs as being foreign and to be shunned, and the terror threatening co-habitation and marriage between communities. This seems to me to be exactly the wrong recipe for greatness, one which will not only further diminish our country in the eyes of the world but, more importantly, in the eyes of our own youth.

The list of names of “Indians” who rule the world ends with Kamala Harris. Of course, her story is utterly inspirational. But, I wondered about the odds that a person like her, the female child of a Hindu Indian and a black Christian West Indian in a predominantly white, patriarchal country, could reach such heights in India today. And she is not an outlier. With the appointment of Yasmin Trudeau as a state senator on Monday, Washington state legislature has four women of South Asian origin, including a Hindu, a Sikh and a Muslim. One of these women, Mona Das from Bihar, said this remarkable occasion was proof that America celebrated the diversity of her communities.

I have no doubt that our nationalists love India, but it baffles me that they cannot see what is staring at us in our faces: Hate and othering will extinguish the flicker of hope for our young people craving for a country where the diversity of personal identities is a marker of a country’s maturity, magnanimity and modernity. Worryingly, in the three years from 2016 to 2019, the number of young Indians who fled the country to study abroad increased by 40 per cent and I expect that the numbers will climb further in the years ahead. Most will become migrants and will undoubtedly further swell the ranks of “Indians” who “rule the world”.

It is our diversity which is our greatest asset and which the West has co-opted, along with some of our brightest talent. If we want India to realise greatness, we will need to reaffirm our commitment to embracing, celebrating and protecting this very essence of our nation.

Written by Vikram Patel

Source: Indian Express, 19/02/22

The truth about radicalisation in India

 

Apoorvanand writes: Why is it so difficult to talk about those who are really poisoning minds?

The claim by the Indian agencies of having busted ISI terror modules has led G S Bajpai and Ankit Kaushik to believe that “the threat of radicalisation in India is pervasive and increasing exponentially” (‘Before they cross the line’, IE, October 29). The situation, according to them, is quite serious and demands a policy response from the government. We have, however, seen multiple terror cases brought by the security agencies that have failed to stand in the courts — often after years of the accused being incarcerated under the UAPA. It is, therefore, not wrong to expect experts to examine the claims by the state agencies with scepticism. That aside, the authors’ concern should not be brushed aside. Radicalisation of minds is a reality in India.

There are different kinds of radicals in our midst: Believers in the dictatorship of the proletariat replacing multiparty democracy, or in the idea of a world ruled by Sharia or in the thought of India being a land primarily of Hindus, with others having lesser rights.

The challenge is to describe the Indian reality of radicalisation. It appears that the writers hold the belief propagated by the agencies — that the sources of radicalisation lie outside the boundaries of India, ISIS or al Qaeda being most prominent. Speaking plainly, when we look at radicalisation from this lens, we tend to focus on Muslims. Looking at a government-sanctioned research project to understand the phenomenon of radicalisation in India led by Bajpai himself, one finds that his assumption is not very different. For example, “the study will be conducted in four states like Maharashtra, Assam, Kerala and Jammu and Kashmir.” One can only guess the religious profile of the 75 radicalised individuals to be sampled from these states.

The reason for such sampling and formulations is that only those acts are considered radical which are dramatic, have a suddenness about them, involve bombs or firearms like AK47s and involve groups acting in the name of Islam. The ISIS lure is real, but can the demonstrators terrorising Muslims offering namaz on the open ground in Gurgaon without using any weapon be seen as radicals? Are those who assembled at Jantar Mantar calling openly for the elimination of Muslims radicalised? In which category should those middle-class Hindus be placed who assembled to oppose the opening of a shop in Anand to terrorise Hindu partners into dropping their Muslim friend from the partnership? What about the groups across India terrorising Hindu-Muslim couples?

Such acts have become so numerous and routine that they no longer excite us enough to find them radical. Yet, if we agree with Bajpai, it is the extent of violence that radicalisation leads to which makes it dangerous. That is why we need to look at the sources of radicalisation and disable them. Can we describe the process and identify the sources of such radicalisation, which has turned into a violent threat in India? Can it be treated as “pervasive” and “exponential”, demanding an extraordinary response?

Recently, a video started circulating on social media platforms in which some students can be heard telling the reporter that Kashmiris were being fed better rice and had been exempt from paying income tax; that the Indian Constitution was not applicable there and the removal of Article 370 has corrected all these anomalies. They also believed that demonetisation had stopped stone-pelting. Should we laugh this away as a case of benign misinformation or see it as a stage in the process of radicalisation, which will make them justify violence against Kashmiris or even take part in it? What about the people in your families who believe that Muslims conspire to send their handsome men to lure Hindu girls? Or those who sincerely believe that the Muslim threat is driving Hindus away from many localities, like Kairana? Or, that Muslims are growing in numbers or people being converted to Christianity to outnumber Hindus? These beliefs lead people to participate in violence against Muslims and Christians or condone it. Should we treat such minds as radicalised or misguided? Yet, we know that in India, it is this mind which is the cause for daily, continuous violence.

It is not difficult to find the sources of this radicalisation. In a recent public meeting in Delhi, a journalist shared his experience with children attending an RSS shakha. When he first met them, they told him that Gandhi was their ideal but after a gap of two months, he had been replaced with Savarkar. Was it merely a harmless replacement of one ideal person by another one or also a change in the ideology, from non-violence to violence, from India for all to India primarily for Hindus? Is this radicalisation or not?

When the senior government and political leaders tell Hindus that their women are under threat because of certain people or their roads are taken by namazis, they are radicalising Hindus. In the same way Donald Trump was doing in the US. After he departed from office, the threat of radicalisation in America was assessed and defined differently. Farah Pandith writes about the way the Biden administration is trying to deal with the challenge of radicalisation: “It promises to create a better understanding of the domestic terrorism threat, using data to inform threat assessments and enhanced sharing across the inter-agency; it calls for a ramping up of so-called ‘prevention’, seeking to challenge extremism’s enduring ability to poison vulnerable minds and communities; it emphasises the central role played by law enforcement, seeking recommendations from the Department of Justice on areas to be improved and built; and it promises to tackle long-term contributors to escalating domestic extremism — not least longstanding racism and conspiracy theories demonising ‘others’. ”

What is our domestic threat? Who is poisoning vulnerable minds and communities here? Is it so difficult to talk about it?

Source: Indian Express, 8/11/21

Manufacturing nationalism

The decision to commemorate the ‘surgical strike’ of 2016 goes against the grain of Indian tradition

Observing the politics of his day many years ago a wit in Britain is said to have remarked “Patriotism is the last resort of the scoundrel!” The wag in India would be forgiven if in a reference to political practice here he were to replace ‘patriotism’ in the bon mot with either ‘nationalism’ or ‘secularism’. Right now, however, it is the observation on the uses to which the former is often put that is all too relevant for this country.

Commemorating an action

Even as we have grown accustomed to election time being turned into silly season by rival political parties scrambling for attention, nothing could have prepared us for the latest missive from the University Grants Commission (UGC), a body originally conceived to nurture our institutions of higher education. It is reported that the UGC has issued notice to the universities that they should prepare to commemorate the ‘surgical strike’ on India’s north-western border which we are informed had taken place on September 29, 2016. This is disappointing to say the least, for we build public universities so that they hold up a mirror to ourselves, not so that they serve the interest of the government we elect. Public universities in a democracy are to be allowed independence from the government of the day and, equally important, its individual members must be assured freedom from the dictates of the majority within them. This is not a utopian proposal as much as something essential for the advancement of knowledge, to which our progress is tied.

As in the age-old dictum, “all is fair in love and war”, everything appears acceptable to this government as it prepares for the election of 2019 looming ahead. It has gambled on the value in its game plan of keeping alive the memory of India’s response to a cross-border intrusion in the recent past.

Two questions arise when we reflect upon the action that is to be commemorated. First, how significant was it? Second, is it a wise thing to do to bring details of a military action into the limelight? In the history of India’s defence engagements on the western front since 1947, the action in question is hardly the biggest or brightest.

War years and response

Surely, India’s response to the infiltrators from Pakistan who had invaded Kashmir in 1948 was more impressive. While, of course, the wars of 1965 and 1971 were far bigger, in 1948 India not only was struggling to find its feet after the trauma of Partition but also was a fledgling country beset with economic hardship. That in the midst of all this the Indian armed forces air-lifted to Srinagar were able to achieve what they did is remarkable, especially given the terrain. Only the political leadership of the time is accountable for why the action did not fully secure India’s borders by removing the invaders from the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir, an outcome believed to have been considered attainable by the then Brigadier, K.S. Thimayya, who had participated in the action and had asked for some more time to achieve the end.

In an inexplicable move, Nehru had vetoed this proposal and taken the matter to the United Nations. The Mountbattens, who were allowed to influence events in India for far longer than they deserved to, are believed to have had a role in this. But whatever is the truth, nothing that could have been achieved at the border in 2016 can match the action of 1948. Surely the people of India can see this, arousing scepticism over the motive for the commemoration of a mere ‘surgical strike’. None of India’s Prime Ministers had gloated over victory in war. Lal Bahadur Shastri’s humility helped him steer clear of this in 1965, and Indira Gandhi, not given to undue modesty, did not make capital out of the India-Pakistan war of 1971, which had left the adversary not just bloodied but halved. It was left to others to liken her to Durga. In their dignified silence, India’s former Prime Ministers had followed the practice of great leaders who refuse to glory in aggression. The countries of Europe remember the sacrifices of their soldiers in the two World Wars but they do so with restraint. Can it be said that they love their country less for merely wearing a flower for a day, not requiring their great universities to celebrate victory in war?

Having the edge

A second reason for avoiding public remembrance of the ‘surgical strike’ of 2016 would be that it undermines any advantage that may be possessed by India. While it may at times be necessary to pursue infiltrators to their lair, it can be strategically unwise to keep advertising your past actions. Here Oscar Wilde’s advice to the young that “one must always be a little improbable” is a good principle to follow even in matters of defence. The enemy should be left constantly guessing how you will react, so that you would be able to exact even greater damage when he attempts to hurt you the next time round. Politicians reveal their amateurishness in matters military when they boast in public of the deeds of our soldiers.

In general, it is unfortunate that India’s politicians are unable to make common cause when it comes to national security. Something of this kind is much needed in a matter that is being aired in our television debates right now. In a relatively rare moment of sanity emanating from them, an anchor suggested that henceforth defence acquisitions be made through bipartisan committees so that there is transparency. This would avoid the mud-slinging that we are left to witness over the Rafale deal and ensure that the national interest is upheld.

Above all, dragging our armed forces into a jingoistic nationalism to serve some narrow political end stems from an ignorance of India’s eternal tradition. Ashoka Maurya renounced violence after his victory at Kalinga and spent the rest of his life spreading the idea of non-violence. The Chandela kings, after victory in war, built exquisite temples at Khajuraho, leaving them for the use of their people. For a soldier to aspire to reward, whether of wealth or fame, was considered a fate far worse than death. This after all is the message of the Bhagavad Gita. Apparently some of India’s politicians are unaware of their inheritance.

A national spirit

Nations are imagined communities. They first arise in the minds of the people. The state can only tap into this national spirit; it cannot create it. Ashokan edicts in the four corners of the country, erected at a time when transporting people and communicating ideas was a Herculean task, testify to the fact that at least some Indians had imagined a community long ago. This imagination had revolved around ethical conduct and transcended cultural, linguistic and religious differences. Over two millennia later it was to erupt in the form of a national movement when Gandhi’s call to unite against a colonial power was instinctively heeded by millions of ordinary Indians. By the 21st century, Indians imagine themselves as a community, it may be said, of diverse nationalities. They must view with amusement the ersatz nationalism being manufactured over a routine action somewhere along India’s north-western border.

Pulapre Balakrishnan is Professor at Ashoka University, Sonepat

Source: The Hindu, 25/09/2018

Don’t enforce patriotism, let education be the anthem in our schools

Enforced patriotism has many pitfalls as we have seen with the national anthem being made mandatory in movie halls. There have been several instances of people being attacked for not standing up, even to the extent of a disabled person being belaboured by people who thought he did not show enough respect on account of not being able to arise from his wheelchair. So, the issue of making the anthem compulsory in any venue should be thought through very thoroughly. The Supreme Court is now examining whether it should be made mandatory in schools with reference to a statement by the attorney general that singing the national anthem instils a sense of patriotism in children and, therefore, it should be made mandatory in schools. So far, the bench has said that the issue needs to be debated and then decided.

The Indian school system has many problems, among which one of the most pressing is the lack of teachers. Once such a thing is made mandatory, it becomes actionable. If there is, for example, a school which has too few teachers, how are they to ensure that the anthem is sung in the proper manner by children? If they fail to do this, this leaves them open to harassment from vested interests. What if the children don’t know the words to the anthem?Patriotism is not instilled through the singing of the anthem alone. If children want to sing the anthem and understand what it stands for, it can be done by schools in their own time and space. The significance of the anthem and flag and the history associated with them can be taught to the child in a manner which she finds enjoyable and educative.

There are many lessons to be learnt from the way in which the mandatory anthem in movie halls has been hijacked by self-styled custodians of patriotism. Invariably, when left to such people, an element of coercion and harassment enters the picture. In the case of schools, if such a move is enforced, who is to ensure that it is carried out properly? Chances are that local interests will appropriate this task and the whole thing will be given a political colour.The apex court had earlier turned down a plea of making the national anthem mandatory in all public offices, including Parliament, assemblies and the courts. Schools should not be made the exemption. Of course, on certain occasions the anthem may be sung, but voluntarily. There are far more important things to deal with in the education system than this, and these should get priority.

Source: Hindustan Times, 20-02-2017

Citizens into subjects

SC’s mandating of nationalism and patriotism threatens to turn the wheel of constitutional history backwards.

The enterprise of teaching and instilling patriotism is fast picking up. India has fought wars before and both during those wars and in peace time, the citizens of this country have never shown any trace of disloyalty or disaffection toward this country. But suddenly, we seem to be collectively succumbing to this phobia about a shortage of nationalism and patriotism among the public. And so, pills and injections containing vitamins N and P are being forced on to the unsuspecting citizenry.

Every day, there is a new demand on our patriotism. If you complain of the queues at ATMs, you are reminded of the soldier and told that standing in a queue is the measure of your loyalty to the nation. Recently, the UGC issued a fatwa that on November 26, Constitution Day, all educational institutions must instill knowledge of not the Constitution generally, but of Fundamental Duties specifically. Now, the Supreme Court has chosen to instruct the government on how to ensure that nationalism and patriotism are instilled in the citizenry — playing the national anthem at the beginning of movie screenings in cinema halls with the national flag displayed on the screen.

The politics of patriotism and nationalism is not new and in many countries across the world, it has unfolded at different points in time, but often with very similar effects — harassment of minorities, blackmailing of dissenters and closure of intellectual freedoms. But what happens when the highest judiciary also begins to believe that the vital vitamins are in short supply and need to be injected forcibly?

Playing the national anthem in cinema halls is not a new move. Judicial overreach, too, is not a new phenomenon. In this case, for instance, the court could have chosen to wait till the government responded (the next hearing on this petition is scheduled for February 2017). Instead, it chose to hurriedly pass this order. In giving an interim order, the SC bench has sought recourse to three interconnected arguments and it is the logic employed by the court that merits critical discussion.

First, the court has transformed the national flag and national anthem into fossilised and statist signatures of power and authority instead of allowing these to be imbricated in popular affection and creative imagination. Because the court says that dramatisation of the national anthem is “inconceivable”. Also, it says that those using the national anthem should not derive any benefit from it. While this would only give rise to controversies over the use of the flag or anthem in creative performances, including their depictions in “commercial” cinema, the idea of transforming symbols of affection and pride into the legal-bureaucratic fangs of the state is equivalent to turning love into fear. Nationalism grounded in a punitive bureaucratic mindset often tends to give way to unruly vigilantism or authoritarian state machinery or both. The court arrives at this statist interpretation because it concludes that the notion of “protocol” is associated with the anthem and flag. It is a pity that popular symbols are thus turned into instruments to frighten and discipline the citizen.

Two, the bench chose to rely on Part IV A of the Constitution, the Fundamental Duties, in order to justify a forced show of respect. This is an explosive arena as far as interpretation of the Constitution is concerned. So far, rights constituted the core of the Constitution. Now, both inside the courtrooms and outside them, a shift in the discourse seems to have begun by invoking “duties”. In this order too, the court chooses to counterbalance rights with duties. This is unfortunate and problematic. Does the order imply that duties are more sacrosanct than rights? Does it imply that rights are conditional on fulfilling certain moral obligations? In fact, the court order has literally thrown open the doors for a new phase in interpreting the Constitution. While the order makes a reference to the “ideals engrafted in the Constitution”, it turns to the Fundamental Duties as instances of those ideals. Showing respect to the national anthem is one such ideal. While there cannot be two opinions on the importance of the anthem or the flag, to state that showing respect to them constitutes “ideals” enshrined in the Constitution is almost rewriting the document; changing it from a document based on welfare and liberalism to one based on authority, patriotism.

Three, the order mentions in passing the idea of constitutional patriotism. It is not clear from the short order of the bench what exactly the honourable judges mean by it. Constitutional patriotism could be seen as a great idea, exhorting citizens to commit to a liberal democratic ethic. It could, alternatively, be seen as an ideological tool for reordering the cognitive universe of citizens and thereby leave behind other loyalties — linguistic, ethnic, regional, etc and place national loyalty above everything. In the former sense, it would operate in the realm of values and moral principles — that citizens must abide by the fundamental values of the Constitution above all. It is doubtful if contemporary proponents of majoritarian nationalism would endorse this idea of constitutional patriotism.

In its latter sense, the idea of constitutional patriotism could privilege uniformity of ideas and ways of life — something Indian nationalism and constitutionalism sought to avoid. From the wording of the SC order, it can be deduced that the honourable judges have probably leaned on the latter meaning of constitutional patriotism. Why else would they say that, “It (constitutional patriotism) does not allow any different notion or the perception of individual rights, that have individually thought of have no space. The idea is constitutionally impermissible.”

This approach of the court might not be very surprising. The courts have normally given rulings and interpreted the Constitution in tune with the overall political-moral ethos of the time. So, the thinking behind the order is consistent with the current ethos.

These three arguments of the bench make for disturbing reading. The order engages in a redefinition of citizenship, wherein the holding of rights is not the hallmark of citizenship; the discharge of certain obligations is the new sine qua non of being a patriot-citizen. Their lordships have taken away from us our cherished right to love our country, our society, our right to be nationalistic and patriotic; in one stroke, our rights are converted into legally enforceable duties — nationalism as compulsion is indeed a pitiful condition. The order of the court has pushed us into that pitiful condition. This is not exactly in tune with the specific history of India’s constitutionalism nor with the more general history of constitutionalism.

Constitutionalism evolved through struggles for rights of ordinary men and women. But when state appropriates the language of nationalism and blatantly sets aside citizenship rights in favour of duties, the wheels of history turn backward. India’s nationalism gave us democracy and converted subjects into citizens. Are we now contemplating to turn citizens into subjects?

The writer taught political science at Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune and is chief editor of, ‘Studies in Indian Politics’.

Source: Indian Express, 2-12-2016

UNIFORMED NATIONALISM

August 7, 2016

Samhita Barooah
PhD Scholar
TISS Guwahati

The term ‘we’ has become very controversial in the current era of being a Nationalist. Who are ‘we’? Why are we ‘we’? How can we become ‘we’? There seems to be urgency in collectivising, connecting, networking and associating as ‘we’. Every community whether they are belonging to a normative parameter or they remain outside such parameters seems to be relating to the idea of ‘we’. Sometimes I wonder if the ‘we’ gets more pronounced when one is bereft of any form of comfort zone.  That is why sometimes when we move out of our native place, our connection with anything that formulates the ‘we’ becomes very blatant. In the current regime of everything ‘right’ belonging to the ‘we’ or not belonging to that ‘we’ has become extremely critical. ‘We’ used to be such an affirmative assertion of belongingness during our formative years of social work education. The concepts of teams, groups and communities are rooted in this complex understanding and application of ‘we’. ‘We’ can unite and the same ‘we’ can divide as well. It is this politics of ‘we’ that is currently defining the tenets of majority. In a world filled with individual assertion and collective consciousness, it becomes very complex to identify with the mono-cultured ‘we’ concept which is only a one-size fit-all form of democracy. When one tries to understand who are ‘we’? One finds a blurred vision of a mass consciousness which is concerned about their livelihoods, resources, gender specific relationships, disabilities, authorities, power sharing, well being and equitable access. Initially ‘we’ used to be a complex yet a composite whole where people identify with each other on the basis of the larger picture of belongingness but in the changing times, ‘we’ needs to be understood from the context specific concerns of the ‘I’ within that ‘we’. Accepting the differences and distancing from assimilation might work well for the concept of I-focused ‘we’. Sometimes masses means a mob where the ‘we’ becomes a weapon of annihilation. Such ‘we’ can be engineered through legislations, authority and assimilation.

In recent times, uniformed ‘we’ have become a norm and anybody outside that uniform has been accused of being a deviant, traitor and an anti-national. It is a convenient space for all conformists of such an enlarged identity of ‘we’. Some also find solace and respite from the constant battles of being rootless and resource less when they are included within the larger mass of a superficial ‘we’. But currently ‘we’ needs to be cloned, conformed and compulsively uniformed. If someone begs to differ from the grand narratives, then such thought process is stifled with force, exclusion and alienation. Social and gender redistributive inclusion is hardly a reality in today’s context. Today’s uniforms are socially secure, financially lucrative and emotionally indifferent. Hence such uniforms are much sought after be it in any service, industrial, judicial, sports, medical, IT, construction or corporate sectors. Even in the context of rural development, agriculture, forestry or animal husbandry, uniformed livelihoods are much more preferred by youth.

Uniformed nationalism is not only limited to the idea of the nation within the territorial boundary but it transcends to all other nations where Indian origin persons are located. Such nationalism limits the possibilities for people to be global citizens whose humanism supersedes their insular nationalism. But in the current context, people are much more comfortable to identify with the value driven identities of being foreign educated, trained or returned in an attempt to find instant social acceptance within the territorial identity of a nation. These days even popular cinema is projecting the celebration of a uniformed nationalism through the films like Airlift, Dishoom, Dabaang, Sultan, Bajrangi Bhaijan, Rustom, Baby, Madari where the protagonist can be rewarded with impunity when his actions are meant for the nation. People also appreciate such roles and remains averse to criticism of their favourite actors. But when a film is focusing on the scars of the same nation, such films like Water, Udta Punjab, Earth, Fire, I Am, P.K., are either censored to the core or banned from usual publicity stunts.

In today’s context the uniformed nationalism is also translated through uniformed masculinity within armed groups. Wearing a uniform increases the credibility, social mobility and powerful influence of the uniform bearer in every social and cultural forum. Uniform becomes the second skin and endorses an egoistic display of pride for the person wearing such a uniform. Most women find security either as a uniform bearer or being an intimate partner to a uniform bearer. It is an assertion of being protected under the veil of a uniform which apparently protects women. Uniformed women have a sense of authority, duty bounded assertion of power and a gender transformative role towards delivering gender justice and social inclusion. But such women also tend to be oppressors within the expected dispositions of power and influence under the veil of the uniform. At the same breath uniformed women tend to be grossly problematic within their domestic domains where they are viewed as deviants from their stereotyped performative roles. The way society celebrates acts of valour for uniformed men; such acts are hardly recognised for women in uniforms. Women’s status does not transform with or without a uniform. Uniforms are a form of discipline which either includes or excludes women from realising their essence.

Nationalism is a superficial sensation of post colonial domination which does not exist within the diverse nuances of a multi-ethnic, gender fluid, fragmented and fragile network of organised parts. Even though it remains a composed whole yet all the parts are actually collective wholes which does not endorse the idea of an over-arching nationalistic image. Hence the only way such nationalism can be engineered is through the discourse of uniformity which is imposed compulsively rather than churning it through consensus, consultation and cooperation. Uniformed nationalism is a chauvinistic display of masculinity which does not have space for dissent, deviation and diversity. In the spirit of freedom, it is the livelihoods attached to such uniformed nationalism which determines the contours of the nation. This month celebrates the rising of the free nations from the grip of colonial constructs whether it is India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka or Myanmar and such celebrations rests on the heavy shoulders of the uniformed nationalists not necessarily on liberal critics whose existence is shrinking with every passing day.

Source: Morung Express, 7-08-2016

Nationalism does not allow the Hindu in India to claim primacy’

Historian Romila Thapar on academic freedom, nationalism, sedition, and free speech.

A widely respected public intellectual, Romila Thapar has groomed generations of students in Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), and earlier in Delhi University. Frank in her views, she insists that in the given climate where people’s nationalism is questioned merely on the basis of a slogan or two, as in the case of JNU, the primary identity of every “citizen of India, over and above all other identities of religion, caste, language, race and suchlike,” is that of an Indian. “Nationalism,” she points out, “does not allow the Hindu in India or the Muslim in Pakistan to claim primacy and privilege as a citizen on the basis of being members of a religious majority community.” In favour of repealing the sedition law, she took a few questions from Ziya Us Salam. Excerpts:

Sedition is being thrown around with reckless ease and disdain at students or at anybody who is critical of the government. Are we in danger of the state riding roughshod over all individual freedom?

Sedition is an extremely serious matter and cannot be bandied about or treated casually as we have started doing in recent times. Those who have the right to accuse a citizen of sedition should be first taught what it actually means and implies, since many people are unaware of its implications or when it is appropriate. Countries change their borders within a century, as indeed the borders of British India changed in the twentieth century with the establishing of three separate nations. Nationalisms are now said to be of various kinds. Governments therefore have to be meticulous in its understanding and sensitive to its meaning before accusing a citizen of sedition. It cannot be used casually in lieu of abuse. In colonial times, sedition related to statements made to incite violence against the colonial state. Today, the colonial state does not exist. It has been replaced by three independent states, so the context of seditious remarks has to that extent become more complex. The law regarding sedition has to be repealed.

In the light of the JNU experience, the government probably does not seem to be well disposed towards freedom of expression, and is happy to see nationalism being bandied about as the monopoly of a chosen few. How disconcerting is this for you as an Indian citizen and a vocal intellectual?

Most people are generally satisfied with leading conventional lives that do not require unconventional views and activities. Intellectuals and academics, however, are not only given to making enquiries in the furthering of knowledge, but this is their expected function. In doing so, they have to be confident that they will be allowed to think in ways that may deviate from the conventional, provided of course their thought and actions are not socially harmful. And what might be socially harmful is always a matter that has to be teased apart and debated. Intellectuals are expected to explore ideas and to do so preferably without fear. But if they have to live in fear, then that fear seeps into the lives of the people amongst whom they live. A society whose ambience is suffused with fear ceases to nurture creativity and its life is reduced to a routine banality.

On a slightly wider canvas, it seems all abodes of free speech are in danger. The Film and Television Institute of India, Hyderabad Central University, Aligarh Muslim University, JNU… there seems to be no end to right-wing parties and their various affiliates hurling accusations to mar the fair name of an institution. Does it remind you of the Emergency?

There seems to be a growing attempt to dismantle institutions where creativity in thought is encouraged. In most cases, new appointments to positions of authority have been made of people who were chosen because they are not associated with the kinds of ideas that explore new avenues of thought and work, or that encourage the questioning of existing ideas, and because they are likely to carry out instructions from the ministries. So far at least, this has been the pattern. In one case, an enterprising Director of the National Museum who actually allowed some qualitatively different kinds of exhibitionsto be held was fairly quickly moved to the Ministry of Sports! Attempts to silence free speech are, of course, always characteristic of governments that lack confidence and are uncomfortable with an independent citizenry.

Nationalism is not just limited to flying flags on official buildings and singing the glories of the nation symbolised as a mother. Nationalism was a deep commitment to the identity of a people, most of whom came together to expel the colonial power. There were some who preferred to give their allegiance to the Islamic state and to the Hindu Rashtra. Nationalism encapsulated and should continue to encapsulate the identity of a people living in a territory claiming equal rights of citizenship. These rights exclude discrimination on any ground, and include a concern for the well-being of all such people, and where the primacy of the citizen is the chief concern of the state. The primary identity is that of being a citizen of India, over and above all other identities of religion, caste, language, race or suchlike. Nationalism does not allow the Hindu in India or the Muslim in Pakistan to claim primacy and privilege as a citizen on the basis of being members of a religious majority community. Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Dalits and Adivasis are all equal citizens. All citizens have the right to debate and discuss their duties towards the state and also the obligations of the state to ensure that the claims to human rights of all citizens are met by the state to an equal degree.

ziya.salam@thehindu.co.in

Keywords: Romila Thapar, nationalism, JNU row, sedition laws

Source: The Hindu, 2-03-2016

Redefining Indian nationhood

he crackdown on JNU is in keeping with the right-wing project to ensure its world view becomes India’s as well. Constructing the premier university as a space for anti-national thinking is crucial, for it gives this project a famous address and a justification to step in.

The stand-off at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) after some students earlier this month organised a meeting to discuss recent instances of capital punishment has occupied centre stage. The high-handed police action, the arrest of the elected president of the students’ union, Kanhaiya Kumar, on charges of sedition, and the battering of students, faculty and the media by a mob of lawyers in Delhi’s Patiala House courts, some with professed sympathies for the Bharatiya Janata Party, represents a new escalation of government overreach and meddling that has undermined the autonomy of institutions of higher education. It also indicates that violence in the name of nationalism is acceptable.

A crackdown on critical thinking

The shocking events that have gripped the nation are significantly different from the routine controversies surrounding campus politics in India. This was a deliberate and calculated attack on the democratic culture of JNU — synonymous with sharp critical thinking and vibrant debate.

JNU is India’s finest university. Its contribution to scholarship is well known and widely recognised; its importance to national intellectual life is undeniable. It has produced social scientists who are highly rated the world over. Its former students have been and are in the higher echelons of the government, bureaucracy, policy institutions and media; many vice chancellors, directors of research institutes and chairpersons of important academic institutions are drawn from JNU. The latest in this long list is the newly appointed vice chancellor of Delhi University. Importantly, many of JNU’s students now teaching in hundreds of universities and colleges have made a significant contribution to curricular reform and modern thinking in these institutions. The JNU course structure has served as a model for syllabi of several Central and State universities. So, why this attempt to destroy one of the finest universities at a time when most public universities are not exactly in the best of health and private universities are yet to take off?

That the attack on JNU was part of a larger design by right-wing forces to capture universities to impose a singular political discourse in institutions of higher learning is now obvious. This systematic pattern is clearly visible in the unrest in the Film and Television Institute of India, University of Hyderabad leading to the tragic suicide of Rohith Vemula, the controversy over the Ambedkar-Periyar Study Circle in the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT)-Madras, the furore over a film screening in IIT-Delhi, and now the protests in Jadavpur University. The Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) has become the instrument for political deradicalisation of various campuses which are fast emerging as major sites of conflict between the broadly secular left and the Hindu nationalists. This is a plausible explanation of the disquieting developments in JNU in the last two weeks. But the events also indicate that there is a larger agenda at work.

State power to silence dissent

So, what is really the issue here? The key issue is the use of state power to silence dissent and using a narrow nationalist discourse to put all critics of the government on the defensive. The immediate provocation for the police action and the sedition charge was the alleged shouting of anti-India slogans at a public meeting on February 9. The JNU students’ union (JNUSU) has categorically denied any involvement with the controversial event. The identity of those who allegedly chanted the slogans is still unknown. And yet, on February 12, the JNUSU president was picked up by the police for “anti-national” behaviour and for violating the sedition laws without ascertaining specific factual details about who shouted the slogans. This was a political decision taken at the highest levels of government except that in taking this decision, the Home Minister and the Delhi Police seem to have gone by evidence that was later found to be doctored and on the basis of a video supplied by a television channel. Commenting on the crackdown, Pratap Bhanu Mehta notes that the government is using “legal tyranny to crush dissent” and “the arrest was an open declaration by government that it will not tolerate any dissent.” JNU, famous for its culture of radical dissent, was purposely chosen to send a message to all those who disagree with this regime that dissent is unwelcome. This institution had to be contained specifically because it was producing a critique that does not always conform to the national consensus about major issues, be it capitalism, nationalism, caste, class, community or gender.

Also read: JNU row: What is the outrage all about?

Pushing its nationalist project

The crackdown on JNU and the arrest of Mr. Kumar on sedition charges is not surprising; it is in keeping with the hyper-nationalism promoted by the right wing. It testifies to the Right’s insistence on changing the public discourse in the country and ensuring its world view becomes India’s as well. It betrays an intention to create an atmosphere of general fear among students and teachers and scare those who do not agree with the government’s cultural project. At a time when the Modi government has not been able to deliver on the economic front, it is consistently finding ways to aggravate polarisation. For now, it is doing this by branding everyone who disagrees with it as anti-national. However, the issue here is not nationalism or patriotism, or who is or is not anti-national.

Rather, the BJP is using the crisis produced by its botched-up handling of the JNU events to widen and polarise public opinion across the country around its nationalist project. Modern India was formed in 1947 on the basis of a broader concept of non-ethnic, civic nationalism. By adopting this nationalism, India intended to set itself apart from Pakistan — which effectively committed itself to being a state for Muslims. The original concept of India as a nation based on civic rather than ethnic identity is being redefined sharply by the BJP’s rise, with much greater political space for the affirmation of Hindu identity, which according to its advocates cannot be separated from Indian nationhood even as this undermines secularism, one of the pillars of Indian democracy since Independence.

The original concept of India as a nation based on civic rather than ethnic identity is being redefined sharply by the BJP’s rise, with much greater political space for the affirmation of Hindu identity.

Constructing JNU as a space for anti-national thinking is crucial for it gives this project a famous address and a justification to step in to show its constituency that it can eradicate such anti-national people. They are also trying to use it as a springboard for the campaign to redefine nationalism. The rhetoric of ultranationalism, they believe, resonates strongly with its core base even though there is little evidence to suggest that it has a wider appeal. Comparing the impact of the notion of the national/anti-national during the Emergency and now, historian Gyan Prakash points out: “Like now, the Emergency regime also labelled dissent as anti-national, but it carried no weight with the public at large.” Nonetheless, sections of the media have been giving a helping hand to this phoney enterprise by letting the question of nationalism frame the terms of debate to polarise and confuse the population by constantly debating nationalism when the issue is the foundational right to dissent in a democracy. Smriti Irani, Minister of Human Resource Development, introduced Bharat Mata into this discourse. Thereafter, if this is a debate about nationalism, then the issue is not just any nationalism but one specifically of the right-wing kind, by which we mean a narrow nationalism rather than an inclusive and capacious one — a category of exclusion that regularly suspects a section of its own citizens.

Mr. Kumar had reminded his audience in his speech a day before his arrest that the forces of “Hindu India” now most vociferous in laying claim to true patriotism were not only absent in the freedom struggle but were often collaborating with the British. This puts in perspective the shape of the struggle between those who would lay claim to India as a democratic, heterogeneous, inclusive and potentially egalitarian national project, and those for whom nationalism is principally an aggressive religious assertion and unbridled pursuit of growth, where neither violence nor widening inequality matters.

Following the arrest of Mr. Kumar, the Modi government finds itself facing huge protests from the liberal-left and progressive opinion within and outside JNU. The police crackdown has drawn criticism worldwide from universities and academics. It has succeeded in bringing together a range of intellectual and political forces which fear threats to the exercise of their democratic rights. In particular, JNU has shown that it has the ability and the willingness to put up stiff and broad-based resistance to the extraordinary attack on the university. This has set off the largest nationwide protests by students in decades and provoked an equally unrelenting response from supporters of the Modi government who say the actions against students are justified. This face-off between state repression and intellectual freedom may well turn out to be a watershed moment for the country and for this anti-intellectual government too. Far from containing JNU, the debate over dissent and tolerance has got a new lease of life and is likely to overshadow everything else.

Also read: Why our universities are in ferment

(Zoya Hasan is Emeritus Professor, Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University and currently ICSSR National Fellow, Council for Social Development, New Delhi.)

Keywords: JNU row, BJP government, JNU's student's union, ABVP, Kanhaiya Kumar, Rohith Vemula death, FTII, Jadavpur university

Source: The Hindu, 24-02-2016

The Catch-22 of nationalism

On

Christmas, hopes for high-level peace talks between India and Pakistan were higher than they had been in years. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a surprise visit to his Pakistani counterpart, Nawaz Sharif, and the two shared a very public and symbolic hug. Now, just two weeks later, the optimism is mostly gone. After terrorists from Pakistan attacked an Indian air base, killing seven Indian security personnel, Modi told Sharif that talks wouldn’t go forward unless Pakistan took action against the terrorists. It seems altogether likely the talks won’t happen at all.

On the surface, nothing is more predictable than the suspension of impending peace talks between traditional enemies after a terrorist attack intended to produce exactly that suspension.

But this latest instance raises an interesting question about the pattern: Why does the terrorists’ technique work? After all, everybody knows that the point of the attack is to derail peace. So, why don’t the public and politicians alike simply discount the effect of the attacks, rather than giving in to their irredentist logic?

In this case, at least, the answer has to do with what you might call the Catch-22 of nationalism.

Modi is a right-of-centre Hindu nationalist. His credentials as a nationalist are exactly what allowed him to visit and embrace Sharif in the first place. His predecessor, left-of-centre prime minister Manmohan Singh, would have loved to have serious peace talks with Pakistan. But, among other factors, he was prevented by Modi and his party, which criticized him from the right as too weak to negotiate effectively with Pakistan.

Modi in contrast could count on the fact that the opposition wouldn’t be able to criticize him from the left for reaching out to Sharif. To this extent, nationalist credentials are a blessing for a peacemaking leader.

The catch is that the same nationalist credentials that let a right-of-centre leader like Modi attempt peace talks also require him to respond when his country is attacked by terrorists.

To make matters worse, the defence seems to have been bungled. Reports suggest that Indian authorities were informed of the impending attack on the Pathankot air base by an Indian superintendent of police, who had been abducted and then freed by the terrorists.

Yet, notwithstanding the notice, the Indian military lost men to the terrorists. And it took several days to track down and kill all the terrorists. The embarrassment of the weak response further fuelled Modi’s need to show strength in response—by delaying or suspending the peace talks.

To be clear, India’s national security wasn’t seriously harmed by the attack, perpetrated by lightly armed terrorists against a defended military base. Its sole purpose was to interfere with the peace talks.

But that fact, even if widely understood, doesn’t matter to a constituency that votes based on national pride. It’s no less insulting, embarrassing and infuriating to be attacked by terrorists if their intent is nakedly to oppose peace.

So what, if anything, can be done to avoid the nationalist Catch-22? The only long-term answer would be for nationalist politicians to educate their constituents to see the terrorist attacks as a sign of their opponents’ weakness. Pakistani terrorists clearly fear the consequences to themselves and their country of peace talks with India. If nationalist Indian voters understood that, perhaps they would allow their leaders to go on negotiating.

The only problem with this informational solution is that it assumes nationalists really want peace in the first place. Sometimes they do—but often nationalists fear and loath their historic enemies, and are prepared to abandon their own leaders if they go too far down the road to peace. When that happens, they deserve the unending war that results.

Source: http://epaper.livemint.com/epaper/viewer.aspx