Monday, February 27, 2012
The Idea of Democracy
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Hindutva: The lexical, Social and Political Significance
Media, most political parties and many intellectuals use the word Hindutva in a very derogative manner, always in association with BJP. They try to give an impression that Hindutva is something so despicable and intolerable in a modern, secular and democratic society that anyone associated with it should be banned; that Hindutva is an uncivilized and fanatic concept that has no place in any civilized society. Ask Arundhati Ray about Hindutva and she will immediately write a few articles on it and all the media will jump to publish each of those. Hindutva is stamped as a fanaticism that BJP supports and want to preach.
Well, let's see what Hindutva is and why there's so much noise about it.
Lexically Hindutva is a new word of Sanskrit origin. I don't think it was ever used in any of the old Sanskrit literature in India. But then Sanskrit grammar rules allow creating new words and the word Hindutva has been coined recently to mean 'being a Hindu', the same way 'naritva' means 'being a nari or female' and 'devatva' means 'being divine'. So now let's see what does the word Hindu mean or signify.
Let's see what Swami Vivekananda told to the Parliament of Religions at Chicago on 11th September, 1893:
"I thank you in the name of the mother of religions; and I thank you in the name of millions and millions of Hindu people of all classes and sects. I am proud to belong to a religion which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance. We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true. I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth. I am proud to tell you that we have gathered in our bosom the purest remnant of the Israelites, who came to Southern India and took refuge with us in the very year in which their holy temple was shattered to pieces by Roman tyranny. I am proud to belong to the religion which has sheltered and is still fostering the remnant of the grand Zoroastrian nation."
Swami Vivekananda was always referred to in the west as a 'Hindoo monk'. His entire life was all about 'being a Hindu'. Tagore's Gitanjali, had shaken the west so much. W B Yeats had said it as "... the work of a supreme culture, ... a tradition, where poetry and religion are the same thing, has passed through the centuries, gathering from learned and unlearned metaphor and emotion, and carried back again to the multitude the thought of the scholar and of the noble." Though technically speaking Tagore was not a Hindu by religion, still his poems speak about the age old Hindu culture and philosophy to which Gandhij had adhered to throughout his life. So all of these personalities, perhaps the three most important people involved in shaping the socio-religious-political profile of modern India, had tried their best to show to the world and us all about being a Hindu. So it's very true that though the term Hindutva is new, but the essence of 'being Hindu' is not new. If 'being Hindu' is derogatory then we have to banish almost all the important personalities of India, including Buddha, Mahaveera, Akbar, Guru Nanak, Kabir and everyone else who represents the very essence of Hindustan and her Hindu people.
So now let's see who is a Hindu and what Hindustan is. Historically the entire land of Indian subcontinent and her people have been always referred to by various names derived from the river Sindhu - be it Megasthenes' Indica, or Persians' Hindu. The term Hindu was never associated with any religion, but to the people of the subcontinent. Likewise the term Hindustan or Indica refers to the entire Indian subcontinent. In spite of the various faiths like Brahmanism (which later became associated wrongly with the term 'Hinduism'), Buddhism, Jaisnism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianism and most recently Islamism and Sikhism, which the people of Indian subcontinent have followed for thousands of years, still they were always perceived as to have a common culture and philosophy. All Indians were seen as Hindu people and their land Hindustan. Even quite recently Iqbal mentioned to Indians as 'Hindi' people in "Sare Jahan Se Achchha" just a few decades ago. So Hindutva is just being a Hindu or Hindi or Indian. Hindutva is all that those unknown sages of the Vedas, Gautama, Mahaveera, Akbar, Nanak, Kabir, Tagore, Vivekananda and Gandhi stood for. Hindutva is about a united nation with people of all sects and faiths having a common culture binding them all. Hindutva is all about staying together and allowing everyone else to stay peacefully. Hindutva is about everything that stands for the prosperity of India or Hindustan, whichever name you call. If you take out Hindutva, then there's no identity for us. So why so much fuss about Hindutva?
The very idea of Hindutva is attacked whenever we have a communal riot. No one appreciates communal riots. They are the biggest scars of our society. But sadly almost all political parties have resorted to some form of communalism in recent times to gain political mileage. Often the ruling political party didn't want to go against the sentiments of the majority community - starting from Suhrawardy's (the then Muslim League CM of Bengal province) role in Hindu genocide on "Direct Action Day" on 16th Aug in 1946 (FYI, that's the biggest genocide of any community till date in India killing more than 4000 people in 72 hours), to the Shikh massacre under Congress and finally the post Godhra riots under Modi. It's a practice for many people to tarnish the secular image of India with such incidents. In this respect let me refer to something mentioned in "Discovery of India" (despite my not-so-much liking for Nehru). In reference to Tagore's severe criticism of the sort of the Indian history, full of wars and massacre and internal fights, taught in schools Nehru mentioned that all these wars are just like blips in the annals of the Indian history, but still people tend to talk more of these negative things rather than highlighting so many good things about the prosperity and growth of the subcontinent over 3000 years in all aspects. As a matter of fact despite all these wars and fightings Indian subcontinent have been the strongest economy in the world till the British rule. Even in 1700, when India was not at one of her highest points, she used to contribute to almost 30% of World Economy, very close to the share of entire Europe despite the fact that Europe was basking in the success and glory of Industrial Revolution in that period. It's really a pity that we learn about the invasions of Timur, Chenghis Khan, Muhammed Ghor and so on, but the fact is that these are just so few in number in the span of 3000 years that they could have been just ignored.
Just consider this: the Bengali San Calendar, considered to be a Hindu calendar, was actually synched up with the lunar Hijri during Akbar's reign, but the counting remained Solar. That's why the date in the Bengali San calendar is quite close to that in Hijri. This means that my marriage, on some auspicious day as per Hindu norms, has a reference to the day when Prophet Mohammed marched from Mecca to Medina. Well, you might argue that Akbar might have forced this on the Bengalis. But then the Bengalis didn't change this ever - even after the death of Akbar or the end of the Muslim Rule in India. Is there any other place in this world where a Muslim calendar is synched up with Christian era or vice versa? Has anyone spoken about this? The sound of Shehnai is part of the ritual in any Hindu marriage in North India even though till date I haven't heard of any Hindu playing Shehnai. In older days even the staunch Brahmins used to invite the Muslim Shenai players to perform in their marriages. Is there any ritual in any part of the world where people of different faith play such a great role? Bismillah Khan's shehnai was one of the main attractions in the temples of Benaras till his death. Can you show me any single church or masjid in the world where a Hindu has been asked to sing Bhajan? Have you ever heard of any Hindu preferring the Brahmin Kishore Kumar Gangopadhyay over a Muslim Mohd. Rafi for religious reason? Have you ever heard of any actor becoming superstar by virtue of his religion? Khans are the rulers of Bollywood. Some of the richest Mulsims, the likes of Wadias and Azim Premji, of the corporate world are in India. The biggest real estate company, Prestige, in Bangalore is owned by Muslims. One of the poorest persons, also a Muslim, from one of the remotest villages went on to become the top boss of India's premier defence research organization and later the President. Ask Abdul Kalam, ask Mohd. Rafi, ask the Wadias, ask Azharuddin, ask Bismillah Khan, ask Shahrukh Khan, ask Amjad Ali Khan and Ali Akbar Khan, ask the sexy Katrina Kaif, ask Omar Abdullah, ask Ghulam Ali if they have ever faced any discrimination? No.... India never discriminates. All that you hear about the riots and genocides are not the only things to hear or talk about. They are just like Timur's invasion and the plunder of Delhi, like Nadir Shah's atrocities, which the historians want to remember more than the fact that some Muslim King in South India (well it's Tipu Sultan, in case we've forgotten) had named his capital (Srirangapatnam) after a Hindu God Vishnu.....
India has been always secular. It has been the Veer Bhoomi (land of the brave people) for the Veers. What Darwin told some hundred years back about survival for the fittest, we knew for ever - Veer Bhogya Vasundara - the world is for the brave. Indians are a brave lot. Hindutva is all about being that brave Indian. Hindutva is about getting rid of the 'minority' tag from anyone and make each and every Indian an integral part, rather than major or minor or backward or scheduled part, of India. Hindutva is about living and letting live - not driving out Tasleema Nasrin out of country. Hindutva is about giving equal rights to all. If an artiste is allowed to paint Saraswati in nude, then "Satanic Verses" shouldn't also be banned. If saying anything derogative against Prophet Muhammad can hurt the sentiments of some people, then denying the existence of Lord Ram can hurt the sentiments of many other people.
Let's not attach any taboo to 'being Hindu'. All Indians were always Hindu or Hindi and our land was always Hindustan. So why so much fuss about being what we've been always?
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Talibanization of India
Anyway who talks about restrictions in Indian Culture actually don't know what the culture is and we should just ignore them.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
India's secular credentials are just impeccable!!
No one appreciates communal riots. They are the biggest scars of our society. Almost all political parties have resorted to some form of communalism in recent times to gain political mileage. Often the ruling political party didn't want to go against the sentiments of the majority community - starting from Suhrawardy's (the then Muslim League CM of Bengal province) role in Hindu genocide on "Direct Action Day" on 16th Aug in 1946 (FYI, that's the biggest genocide of any community till date in India killing more than 4000 people in 72 hours), to the Shikh massacre under Congress and finally the post Godhra riots under Modi.
Now consider the following.
Ashoka turned into a Buddhist and played a great role in spreading Buddhism to major part of Asia Pacific. Statistically the spread of Buddhism during the reign of Ashoka and the successive Buddhist Rulers of India over the few centuries was much more than what the Caliphs could attain in the first few centuries after the birth of Islam - and all that without any force. Even though the whole of China, Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, Sri Lanka and many other countries turned Buddhist, India still remained a majority Hindu nation. Have you ever heard of any conflict between the Hindu and Buddhist. Ashoka, Kanishka, Harshavardhana, the Palas and many more emperors of India, though themselves Buddhists, never antagonized the Hindu rituals and traditions. In the same way the Hindu Guptas allowed Buddhism to flourish. The result of this harmony was off course Taxila and Nalanda Universities, the centers of learning and education for the entire world for almost 1500 years, till the rise of Baghdad during the Golden Age of Islam. People from all over the world flocked to Taxila and Nalanda, which were the centers of great discussions, arguments, debates that resulted in the greatest researches, inventions and discoveries in the field of science, mathematics and astronomy.
The greatest example of harmony is perhaps the period between 1200 and 1800 AD, when most part of India was ruled by Muslim rulers, all of whom came from outside. It's remarkable that elsewhere Islam just swept across all the places where ever it went. Almost 100% of Persian Empire (covering Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Asia Minor and major parts of Middle East) and Arab land was converted into Islam over a few centuries. Traces of pre-Islamic culture and religions were wiped out since the decline of the Golden Age of Islam (8 to 12th Century AD). But despite the 600 years of Muslim rule in India, only a fraction of India had converted to Islam. From this point of view the Muslim rulers in India were undoubtedly much more tolerant than their Western counter parts. This is also an example of the Indian tradition of tolerance and harmony, that existed even before the advent of Islam in India. None of the Muslim rulers elsewhere in the world had non Muslims in critical positions as in India. Akbar's reign is just incredible from that point of view - 4 out of 9 in his Nava Ratna were Hindus. None of the Muslim rulers elsewhere in the world ever thought of amalgamating different religions and creating a new religion called Din-i-Ilahi like Akbar. Beyond the Islamic Golden Age, there were very few instances of free debates and discussions on religion and philosophy between people of various creed and cultures in the West. For three hundred years, the mullahs of the Ottoman Empire objected to the introduction of the printing press saying that the Word of God (the Qur’an) would be defiled if it came in contact with the wood or the metal of the press. It was only in the year 1728, three hundred years after it made its appearance in Christian Europe that the printing press was allowed into the Ottoman Empire. Contrary to that, Dara, one of Aurangzeb's brothers had translated Upanishad from Sanskrit to Persian. The first Ramayana in Bengali was written with the initiative of the first Muslim Rulers of Bengal. Has anyone heard of any Muslim King naming his capital after the a Hindu God? Well, that would be just a blasphemy in Arab world. But Tipu's capital was actually called Srirangapatnam - the city of Vishnu.
The other side of the story is also there. The Bengali San Calendar, considered to be a Hindu calendar, was actually synched up with the lunar Hijri during Akbar's reign, but the counting remained Solar. That's why the date in the Bengali San calendar is quite close to that in Hijri. This means that my marriage, on some auspicious day as per Hindu norms, has a reference to the day when Prophet Mohammed marched from Mecca to Medina. Well, you might argue that Akbar might have forced this on the Bengalis. But then the Bengalis didn't change this ever - even after the death of Akbar or the end of the Muslim Rule in India. Is there any other place in this world where a Muslim calendar is synched up with Christian era or vice versa? Has anyone spoken about this? The sound of Shehnai is part of the ritual in any Hindu marriage in North India even though till date I haven't heard of any Hindu playing Shehnai. In older days even the staunch Brahmins used to invite the Muslim Shenai players to perform in their marriages. Is there any ritual in any part of the world where people of different faith play such a great role? Bismillah Khan's shehnai was one of the main attractions in the temples of Banaras till his death. Can you show me any single church or masjid in the world where a Hindu has been asked to sing Bhajan? Have you ever heard of any Hindu preferring the Brahmin Kishore Kumar Gangopadhyay over a Muslim Mohd. Rafi for religious reason? Have you ever heard of any actor becoming superstar by virtue of his religion? Khans are the rulers of Bollywood. Some of the richest Muslims, the likes of Wadias and Azim Premji, of the corporate world are in India. The biggest real estate company, Prestige, in Bangalore is owned by Muslims. One of the poorest persons, also a Muslim, from one of the remotest villages went on to become the top boss of India's premier defense research organization and later the President. Ask Abdul Kalam, ask Mohd. Rafi, ask the Wadias, ask Azharuddin, ask Bismillah Khan, ask Shahrukh Khan, ask Amjad Ali Khan and Ali Akbar Khan, ask the sexy Katrina Kaif, ask Omar Abdullah, ask Ghulam Ali if they have ever faced any discrimination? No.... India never discriminates. That's why the Parsis never found any problem to establish the biggest business houses in India where as they had to flee from their home land - Persia. The Tatas are as much Indians as are the Birlas and Ambanis. Have you heard of anyone discriminating between Tatas and Ambanis because of their religion?
Can you show any other country in the world with such impeccable tradition of harmony and secularism? India always has provided the safest and the most prosperous ground for the development of any culture and religion. Even now we're equally proud of our past which is partly pagan (Indus Valley), partly Hindu, partly Buddhist and partly Muslim. A very simple example of our regards for all the religion and culture is the way our history is highlighted in our National Portal: http://india.gov.in/knowindia/medieval_history2.php
In contrast just have a look into what Pakistan says about their history: http://www.heritage.gov.pk/html_Pages/history1.html
An entire 1000 years of Hindu rule is intentionally omitted to give stress on the Islamic Age. Even the Vedas are mentioned in a very poor light: "In fact they (Aryans) believed in nature gods, one of them Indra destroyed the dams and spelled disaster on the local Dasyus who differed from them in colour, creed and language. These Aryans conquerors developed there own religion of the Vedas, practiced animal sacrifice and gradually built up tribal kingdoms all over the Indus Valley". It's a pity that the national portal of Pakistan totally ignores the fact that their ancestors might have written the greatest books of philosophy some 3500 years back just because the Vedas are non-Islamic in origin. The same is true for Iran where the Mullahs revolted against the Shah's decision to use a calendar with zero point coinciding with the coronation of Darius the Great rather than the Islamic Hijri, in 1970s. Just see the difference - one of our Hindu calendars is synched with Hijri and Iran doesn't even want to relate to their greatest emperor just because he was not a Muslim.
Do I have to give any further proof for the secular credentials of India - of which Tagore says - "Here I stand with arms outstretched to hail man divine in his own image and sing to his glory in notes glad and free. No one knows whence and at whose call come pouring endless inundation of men rushing madly along to lose themselves in this vast sea of humanity that is India. Aryans and Non-Aryans, Dravidians and Chinese Scythians, Huns, Pathans and Mogols all are mixed, merged and lost in one body" - that's the body an Indian!!
A final note. The Hindu-Muslin communal divide is nothing but the creation of Jinnah. People say that Savarkar had talked about Two-Nation-Theory long time before Jinnah. But the point is that how much influence did Savarkar have on Indians? Compared to that Jinnah's influence on Indian politics and society was much more stronger. Also Savarkar never asked the Hindus to go and kill the Muslims, which Jinnah actually did. The first ever large scale communal riot between Hindus and Muslim happened only after Jinnah's call for Direct Action against Hindus. Since then the Hindus have been just retaliating. The day Jinnah's venom cease to exist in the minds of any Indian, there won't be any communal problem!! And the saddest part is that Jinnah himself was also quite secular like any other Indian. He invented the venom just to satisfy his political ambition.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Is the Vedic Class System or Varnashrama the reason for the wonder growth of India?
In his recent column "Why inefficient India worries China" Gurucharan Das has mentioned
"What really perplexes the Chinese, he said, is that scores of nations have engaged in the same sorts of economic reforms as India, so why is it that it’s the Indian economy that has become the developing world’s second best? The speed with which India is creating world-class companies is also a shock to the Chinese, whose corporate structure is based on state-owned and foreign companies. I have no satisfactory explanation for all this, but I think it may have something to do with India’s much-reviled caste system. Vaishyas, members of the merchant caste, who have learned over generations how to accumulate capital, give the nation a competitive advantage. Classical liberals may be right in thinking that commerce is a natural trait, but it helps if there is a devoted group of risk-taking entrepreneurs around to take advantage of the opportunity. Not surprisingly, Vaishyas still dominate the forbes list of Indian billionaires."
Mr Gurucharan Das has brought out a very interesting point in his article. It's really a wonder that despite the dismal condition of India's political class and the government India continues to grow at a rate that's among the highest in the world. The evolution of the corporate culture in India is also quite commendable. Suddenly the world has also started appreciating the management and leadership traits of Indians. People had more faith on Ratan Tata than the other bidders for Corus. Lakshmi Mittal could also turn the world around in his favour during the acquisition of Arcelor. Mr Gurucharan has attributed the business skills of Indians to the fact that Indian culture had a dedicated class called Vaishyas for the sole purpose of doing business. I believe not only the Vaishyas, but the entire class system or the Varnashrama, which has been distorted to horrid proportions at later times, of the Aryan or Vedic civilization did play a great role in shaping up the Indian intellect.
A successful management strategy is to distribute various roles to different people with the right skill. The traits required for sales and marketing are widely apart from that of exploring new business opportunities in orthogonally different areas. The skills required in managing human resources are also totally different from managing the finances of a company. All management courses have specializations based on relevant skills required for a particular type of job. It’s important to have dedicated people for different jobs than having the same person to do everything. It’s also equally important to identify the right person with the right set of skills to do the right job. The success of a company is totally dependent on the selection of the right people. A few thousand years ago the people of India did appreciate the need of such division of work.
We understand today that a nation should be run like a corporation. The premier of any country should be like the CEO of a company. The Brahman class was entrusted with the education of rest of the people. That’s very much like a dedicated team for R&D responsible for all the research, training and imbibing the right skills required by everyone in a company. Everyone had to compulsorily spend the initial years of life at the Brahmans’ houses for education. Each and every king and prince had to follow this custom without any exception. This discipline played a very important role in shaping the intellect and future of the people who would later become leaders.
Perhaps the existence of a dedicated class like this resulted in the high level of philosophy and science in the Vedic and later early days of Indian civilization. Everyone understands that the R&D of any company can’t be held under the guns of the sales team with a predefined revenue target. R&D has a creative aspect and should be left alone without much interference. The Brahman class was meant to be aloof from the day to day operation of the country, which was handled by the Kshatriyas. The ruler, very much like the COO, used to be mostly from this class. The other most important aspect to sustain any country is the trade and commerce, for which there was the class called Vaishyas. There were off course other classes like the Vaids, or the doctors and others based on the specific jobs they used to do. All the classes were equally important for the prosperity of the nation.
The fact that ancient India has been very prosperous for a very long time can be very well attributed to the corporate nature of ruling the nation. It’s no wonder that the earliest book on management was written by Chanakya long before management became a subject in the business schools. Even the management traits used by Krishna became a topic of much interest to the business schools. The evolution of non violence by Mahatma Gandhi is also not by chance. Ashoka had used the same tactic and was able to create one of the biggest empires of the region. Non violence can also be seen as an efficient strategy to manage millions of people. All these strategies have evolved over thousands of years of maturity and study which was surely influenced a lot by the class system.
I’d like to end with a comment about the existence of one more class called the Shudras, which is often considered as the source of all untouchability in Indian society. In Discovery of India Jawaharlal Nehru mentioned that the Shudras or the inferior class consisted of the native people or the earlier residents who’d been defeated by the incoming Aryan people over several years. Throughout the history the victor class has always slaughtered the defeated. It’s a natural chauvinism associated with the victory. So the fact that the Aryans considered the defeated people inferior shouldn’t be considered in any special derogative way.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's address in acceptance of an Honorary Degree of Doctor of Civil Law from the University of Oxford
This is an emotional moment for me. Oxford brings back many fond memories I cherish. For this reason, as much as for the intrinsic value of the honour you bestow upon me, I am truly overwhelmed. There can be nothing more valuable than receiving an honorary degree from one's own alma mater. To be so honoured by a university where one has burnt the proverbial midnight oil to earn a regular degree is a most fulfilling experience.
New India, new hope
The world has changed beyond recognition since I was a student here. Yet, some age-old problems endure. Developing countries have found a new voice, a new status, and have acquired a new sense of confidence over the last few decades. As an Indian, I see a new sense of hope and purpose. This new optimism gives us Indians a new sense of self-confidence and it shapes our world view today. It would be no exaggeration to suggest that the success of hundreds of young Indian students and professionals in Universities like Oxford, and elsewhere across the world, has contributed to this renewed self-confidence of a new India.
The economics we learnt at Oxford in the 1950s was also marked by optimism about the economic prospects for the post-War and post-colonial world. But in the 1960s and 1970s, much of the focus of development economics shifted to concerns about the limits to growth. There was considerable doubt about the benefits of international trade for developing countries. I must confess that when I returned home to India, I was struck by the deep distrust of the world displayed by many of my countrymen. We were overwhelmed by the legacy of our immediate past. Not just by the perceived negative consequences of British imperial rule, but also by the sense that we were left out in the cold by the Cold War.
There is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire had a sound basis. As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6 per cent in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3 per cent at that time, to as low as 3.8 per cent in 1952.
Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th Century, "the brightest jewel in the British Crown" was the poorest country in the world in terms of per capita income. However, what is significant about the Indo-British relationship is the fact that despite the economic impact of colonial rule, the relationship between individual Indians and Britons, even at the time of our Independence, was relaxed and, I may even say, benign.
Mahatma and empire
This was best exemplified by the exchange Mahatma Gandhi had here at Oxford in 1931 when he met members of the Raleigh Club and the Indian Majlis. The Mahatma was in England then for the Round Table Conference and during its recess, he spent two weekends at the home of A.D. Lindsay, the Master of Balliol. At this meeting, the Mahatma was asked: "How far would you cut India off from the Empire?" His reply was precise: "From the Empire, entirely; from the British nation not at all, if I want India to gain and not to grieve." He added: "The British Empire is an Empire only because of India. The Emperorship must go and I should love to be an equal partner with Britain, sharing her joys and sorrows. But it must be a partnership on equal terms." This remarkable statement by the Mahatma has defined the basis of our relationship with Britain.
Jawaharlal Nehru echoed this sentiment when he urged the Indian Constituent Assembly in 1949 to vote in favour of India's membership of the Commonwealth. Nehru set the tone for independent India's relations with its former master when he intervened in the Constituent Assembly's debate on India joining the Commonwealth and said:
"I wanted the world to see that India did not lack faith in herself, and that India was prepared to co-operate even with those with whom she had been fighting in the past provided the basis of the cooperation today was honourable, that it was a free basis, a basis which would lead to the good not only of ourselves, but of the world also. That is to say, we would not deny that cooperation simply because in the past we had fought and thus carry on the trail of our past karma along with us. We have to wash out the past with all its evil."
India, Britain as partners
India and Britain set an example to the rest of the world in the way they sought to relate to each other, thanks to the wisdom and foresight of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. When I became the Finance Minister of India in 1991, our Government launched the Indo-British Partnership Initiative. Our relationship had by then evolved to a stage where we had come to regard each other as partners. Today, there is no doubt in my mind that Britain and India are indeed partners and have much in common in their approach to a wide range of global issues.
What impelled the Mahatma to take such a positive view of Britain and the British people even as he challenged the Empire and colonial rule? It was, undoubtedly, his recognition of the elements of fair play that characterised so much of the ways of the British in India. Consider the fact that an important slogan of India's struggle for freedom was that "Self Government is more precious than Good Government." That, of course, is the essence of democracy. But the slogan suggests that even at the height of our campaign for freedom from colonial rule, we did not entirely reject the British claim to good governance. We merely asserted our natural right to self-governance.
Today, with the balance and perspective offered by the passage of time and the benefit of hindsight, it is possible for an Indian Prime Minister to assert that India's experience with Britain had its beneficial consequences too. Our notions of the rule of law, of a constitutional government, of a free press, of a professional civil service, of modern universities and research laboratories have all been fashioned in the crucible where an age-old civilisation met the dominant Empire of the day. These are all elements which we still value and cherish. Our judiciary, our legal system, our bureaucracy, and our police are all great institutions, derived from British-Indian administration and they have served the country well.
Legacies of the Raj
Of all the legacies of the Raj, none is more important than the English language and the modern school system. That is, if you leave out cricket! Of course, people here may not recognise the language we speak, but let me assure you that it is English. In indigenising English, as so many people have done in so many nations across the world, we have made the language our own. Our choice of prepositions may not always be the Queen's English; we might occasionally split the infinitive; and we may drop an article here and add an extra one there. I am sure everyone will agree, however, that English has been enriched by Indian creativity as well and we have given you R.K. Narayan and Salman Rushdie. Today, English in India is seen as just another Indian language.
The idea of India as enshrined in our Constitution, with its emphasis on the principles of secularism, democracy, the rule of law, and, above all, the equality of all human beings irrespective of caste, community, language or ethnicity, has deep roots in India's ancient civilisation. However, it is undeniable that the founding fathers of our republic were also greatly influenced by the ideas associated with the age of enlightenment in Europe. Our Constitution remains a testimony to the enduring interplay between what is essentially Indian and what is very British in our intellectual heritage.
The idea of India as an inclusive and plural society draws on both these traditions. The success of our experiment of building a democracy within the framework of a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, and multi-religious society will encourage all societies to walk the path we have trodden. In this journey, both Britain and India have learnt from each other and have much to teach the world. This is perhaps the most enduring aspect of the Indo-British encounter.
It used to be said that the sun never sets on the British Empire. I am afraid we were partly responsible for sending that adage out of fashion. But if there is one phenomenon on which the sun cannot set, it is the world of the English-speaking people, in which the people of Indian origin are the single largest component.
`Give and take'
No Indian has paid a more poetic and generous tribute to Britain for this inheritance than Rabindranath Tagore. In the opening lines of his Gitanjali, Gurudev says:
"The West has today opened its door,
There are treasures for us to take,
We will take and we will also give,
From the open shores of India's immense humanity."
To see the India-British relationship as one of `give and take' at the time he first did was an act of courage and statesmanship. It was, however, also an act of great foresight. As we look back and also look ahead, it is clear the Indo-British relationship is one of `give and take.' The challenge before us today is to see how we can take this mutually beneficial relationship forward in an increasingly inter-dependent world.
My alma mater
I wish to end by returning to my alma mater. Oxford, since the 19th century, has been a centre for Sanskrit learning and the study of Indian culture. The Boden professorship in Sanskrit, and the Spalding professorship in Eastern Religions and Ethics stand testimony to the university's commitment to India and Indian culture. I recall with pride the fact that the Spalding professorship was held by two very distinguished Indians: Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, who later became the President of India, and by Dr. Bimal Krishna Matilal. In the context of the study and preservation of Indian culture, I also wish to recall the contribution of another Oxonian, Lord Curzon, about whose project to preserve and restore Indian monuments, Jawaharlal Nehru said:
"After every other Viceroy has been forgotten, Curzon will be remembered because he restored all that was beautiful in India."
Oxford has sent out many men to rule India. Some stayed behind to become India's friends. Men like Edward Thompson, Verrier Elwin, and many others are remembered in India for their contribution to our life and society.
I always come back to the city of dreaming spires and of lost causes as a student. I am here this time in all humility as the representative of a great nation and a great people.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Identity and Violence
I don’t think there can be any more apt title to my article, which I’ve been thinking of writing ever since one Mr Raj Thackeray has been inspiring the Indian Press to popularize a term called “Marathi Manoos”. There is nothing wrong in the term. It refers to the Marathi people. But the context in which the term is being over used nowadays in the media has resulted in seeing it in a bad light. “Marathi Manoos” has become synonymous to violence against the North Indians, specially the Biharis, in Bombay on the statistically wrong allegation that they are snatching the employment opportunities from the localites.
The entire episode stirred several questions in my mind. A similar allegation has been levelled by a much lesser known outfit called “Kannada Rakshaka Vedike” in Bangalore against the outsiders. The first question that came to my mind is what’s the identity of a localite. A further extension of the question is what’s my identity. Am I a localite in Bangalore? Let me try to find the answers to my questions.
I was born more than some three decades back in a place, which no longer exists. The name of my birthplace has been changed. Officially there’s no place called Calcutta now. So I don’t know what’s the official status of my ‘birth place’. My mother has inherited the knowledge of spoken Bengali from her parents. So from that point of view officially I can claim that my mother’s tongue is indeed Bengali. To make things simpler my father’s mother tongue also happens to be Bengali. So there’s no confusion with regards to my mother tongue. So that makes me a Bengali speaking, by birth. I started speaking Bengali at home. As a matter of fact I still speak Bengali at home with my wife, whose mother’s tongue also happens to be Bengali. So apart from being born a Bengali speaking, I’m also a surviving Bengali speaking person. But then I was never a permanent resident of any place within West Bengal. I never paid any tax in West Bengal. I voted only once in West Bengal. I’ve been staying in Bangalore for the past eleven years. I paid more than 95% of my total income tax till now in Bangalore. I’ve regularly voted in Bangalore for the past eight years. I own properties only in Bangalore. I own cars registered only in Bangalore. My passport has my Bangalore address as the permanent address. My PAN card, Voters ID card, Ration Card everything has my Bangalore address. Apart from the mention of the now non-existent ‘Calcutta’ as my birth-place in my passport there’s no other reference to my connection to any place other than Bangalore anywhere in any official document. So what’s my locality? Do I belong to Bangalore or I still belong to Calcutta?
Unlike most people in Bangalore, whose mothers’ tongues happen to be a language called Kannada, I don’t speak the ‘local’ language. Wait a minute, what’s the definition of local language? Is Bengali the local language of Calcutta? Or is Kannada the local language of Bangalore? Well, officially not, but unofficially yes. The constitution does acknowledge Bengali and Kannada languages as major languages spoken in India, but there’s officially no reference to tagging Bengali to Calcutta or West Bengal and Kannada to Bangalore or Karnataka. There’s no discrimination between the Kannada spoken in Deshpriya Park in Calcutta and that in Bangalore in Karnataka. I understand that the rights of people speaking Kannada at home in Deshpriya Park are exactly same as that of the majority of the people speaking the language in Bangalore. In Deshpriya Park, if an entire ‘para’ or locality speaks Kannada, then the children there can surely grow up with the idea that their local language is indeed Kannada and not Bengali, though the later might be spoken by more people around – outside their ‘para’. Till now my kid of six years has encountered more Bengali than Kannada speaking people in his life. In his world he still knows that ‘majority’ of the people around him speak Bengali in Bangalore. He has been to Durga Puja where he has seen thousands of people speaking ‘his’ language. He is yet to see such huge crowds speaking any other language. So there’s no wrong if he feels that he speaks the language that’s spoken by majority of the people in his locality and that language is Bengali. So you see, there’s a difference in perception of the ‘local’ language between him and myself. So the question remains – is there any definition of a ‘local’ language? Yes, there’s always a statistical definition of the majority language in any city or state or locality. But I don’t know how to define a local language.
The survival of any language or religion or tradition doesn’t depend on who speaks the language or who practises the tradition. They survive naturally as long they are required to survive. Despite royal patronage, Sanskrit or Pali couldn’t survive because they were no longer required by the people. The survival of Kannada doesn’t depend on whether 100% of people staying in Karnataka speak or respect the language. Even if majority of the people in Karnataka stop speaking Kannada it might still survive if it’s really required to survive. Just by enforcing people to use Kannada can neither ensure the survival of the language nor impact the growth of the language. From this point of view it makes no sense to make the knowledge of any language a necessary or sufficient condition for association of an individual with any locality.
So coming back to my original question: Where do I belong? I don’t speak the majority language in Bangalore and I don’t stay in the place whose majority language I speak at home. Physically, financially and economically I’ve been connected to Bangalore for more than a decade. So which one takes precedence? What decides where I belong?
Well, truly speaking, there’s absolutely no necessity to find out authentically where I belong because none of my official work or identity requires that. Constitutionally I have the same rights irrespective of my belonging to Calcutta or Bangalore. So why the hell am I bothered about finding out if at all I belong to Bangalore? Well, I shouldn’t bother at all. There’s no statehood or cityhood in India. The reference to Calcutta, my birth place, is just a matter of fact that’s mentioned in my passport. There’s no special status or identity attached to this matter-of-fact. In the same way my residential address of Bangalore is also mentioned as a matter of fact in my passport. My identity would have been the same had my place of birth been some nondescript place in Ladakh and my permanent address some unknown hill-top in a tribal village in Coorg.
I’ve only one identity and that’s I belong to the sovereign socialist republic of India. Any locality can have any majority language or religion or creed or ritual or tradition. That has nothing to do with the identity of the people of the locality.
Alas!! There are many people who have absolutely no regards for our constitution. They commit the criminal offence of distorting and disrespecting our constitution and thwarting self-claimed identities to the people of India. Calling an Indian by any other name, be it the name of a language or religion, is itself showing disrespect to the very idea of ‘India’. More than a nation, India is a symbol of pluralism, an epitome of a civilization of humanity where all other identities and traditions and rituals and religions have amalgamated into just one identity – that’s of an Indian. No other identity can bear our true identification. The only commonality that ties each and every Indian is this very identity of Indianness, something that the people of the whole world have identified us with forever. For centuries and millennia, the people throughout the world have always found this striking commonality among all of us. It’s not for no reason that we all have been always identified with India or Hindustan or Hindi or Hindu or Sindhu or Indi what so ever similar names irrespective of the fact that we always spoke so many languages and followed so many different traditions forever. If we could retain our identity since time immemorial, why should we change that and identify us with some other names now? Any other identity of an Indian will just lead to violence and nothing else.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Don't Divide Us Further
It's really shocking to see that many so called non-political literary people were involved in demanding classical status for their languages. As if, without the official status the fate and status of these languages would have been questionable. Technically, culturally and emotionally, each and every language in the world is classic in it's own way. The development of a language is perhaps one of the most fascinating things about the human race. Each language shapes up over so many years to express the feelings, emotions, love, technology and above all the culture of a race or creed. This evolution itself qualifies each language, irrespective of it's age and usage, to be classic in it's own unique way. So it really sounds so gross to attribute some special status to a particular language. It's also another way of further dividing our already divided country on another basis.
Linguistically, the present form of any language, be it Tamil or Hindi or anything else, is way different from what it used to be thousand years back. Each language has undergone tremendous changes over the years. Majority of the Indian languages have come from the Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Sino-Tibetan and the Austric group of languages. Both the Dravidian and the Austric groups are much older than the Indo-Aryan group. Apart from Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam, languages with Dravidian origin are still spoken in far off places like Baluchistan (Brahui) and Bengal (Malto). Most of the tribal languages of the Santal, Kol, Bhil, Mundas etc are derived from the Austric family, which is as old as the Dravidian group. Apart from this, most of the modern day major languages of Indo-Aryan group like Bengali, Assamese, Gujarati and Marathi can be traced back to 10th century AD. Manipuri language can be traced back to 3rd century AD. But none of these languages resemble much the primitive forms that existed thousand years back. The fascinating thing is that there have been so much amalgamation between all these languages that it's really hard to isolate the unadulterated nascent forms. This very amalgamation has created, in Tagore's words, the "ocean of the super humans of Bharatavarsha", on the pure banks of which he aspires his mind to arise - "He Mor Chitta, Punya Tirthe Jago Re Dheere / Ei Bharater Mahamanaver Sagar Teere". Let's not speak of Bengali or Tamil or Hindi. Let's realize that we all speak only one language and that's the language of Bharatavarsha. There's no division, there's no special status, there's no rivalry. As mentioned in Upanishads, "Srunvantu Vishve, Amrutanshya Putrah", we, all Indians are the children of immortal bliss. We all are equal and for God's sake, let not the politicians divide us further!!
Sudipto Das
http://www.mirafra.com
http://www.sudiptodas.com
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Salzburg in India
India has a rich and very long legacy of classical music. There have been so many stalwarts in Indian music, both in present times and in past. But is there any Salzburg in India? The name that’s perhaps most widely associated with Hindustani Music is Tansen, who was born in a place near Gwalior in 1520 AD. His tomb located in Gwalior is the site of the famous Tansen Music Festival. But can we call Gwalior the Salzburg of India? In Gwalior there’s a hotel run by MP tourism named after Tansen. There can be some streets or some organizations named after Tansen. But I can’t say that Gwalior has kept Tansen alive as Salzburg has kept Mozart. Amir Khusru, considered to be the father of Hindustani Classical Music by many, or Baiju Bawra, a great proponent of the Dhrupad Style of music, has a much worse fate than Tansen. I couldn’t remember of any Music Festival or street or organization named after either of them. I argued that Tansen is almost two hundred and fifty years older than Mozart. It might have been easier for Salzburg to keep alive a more recent person. Then I recalled my only trip to Jorasanko, the place where Rabindranath Tagore was born in 1861, more than a hundred year after Mozart’s birth. Apart from the national anthem of two countries he had also composed the music of “Vande Mataram”, which was perhaps the biggest ammunition for a nonviolent India during her struggle for independence, and innumerable other songs. I wanted to feel the ambience of the house where Rabindranath grew up, walked, slept, sung and composed his music. Apart from a few rooms of the huge palatial Thakur Bari, the name by which the house of Tagores used to be referred, the rest is in shambles, like dilapidated debris of something unworthy of remembrance.
I also recalled that a few years back Delhi Development Authority had a very embarrassing moment when they found that they had created a public urinal beside the place where Mirza Ghalib had lived. Even the birth place of Gandhi seldom features among popular tourist destinations in India. If not for the sake of tradition or culture can’t we have a Salzburg in India even for the sake of business?
