A curious turn, a curious observation and us

After the glasses have been refilled a healthy number of times, the conversation of curious young men invariably take a curious turn. Of course the above statement is only a generalization based on my observation alone, but I think many would identify with it. The other day, after the usual curious turn, I thought I had made a rather curious observation-ingrained in Man's innermost self are just a handful of primeval feelings, like hunger and fear, those that can be observed in any other mammal of lower intelligence, the instincts necessary for subsistence. Civilization dawns as Man uses that intelligence to put layer upon layer on these basic instincts. Our instinct of being 'social' probably goes as far as that of a pack of hyenas, a necessary condition for survival rather than a manifestation of love and care. As for the love of a mammalian parent, it ultimately boils down to the primeval instinct of survival again, the need for continuity of the progeny. I know that this line of thought is extremely grim and fearful, and that it undermines all that we have achieved in the thousands of years as the 'civilized', dominant being that held sway over the planet. Fortunately, our intelligence has been and continues to be more than capable of countering the animal in us, and add layers of probably genuine reasons for our existence.
Nevertheless, the fragility of Man's enterprise and the ease with which the 'layers' can be peeled off can be observed quite clearly in the world we live in today. We uphold the values of civilization with infallible integrity among those in our immediate social vicinity (read country; culture; religion; etc. etc.) but discard them when we encounter those with whom we can identify to a lesser degree, notwithstanding the fact that our 'civilized' mind should have been trained by now to see the things that are common amongst us rather than the things that divide us, which are by far lesser in number and to a great extent only superficial (like skin color for example). However, our antagonisms clearly  develop due to the perceived threat of competition, and therefore survival, or merely because of our belligerent, animalistic nature of dominance. From  the Egyptians to the Romans and then to the great colonial Empire where Darkness Prevailed (if the sun never set in that expansive Empire, then conversely, darkness too had prevailed. This is in fact a more befitting description when we see how the Empire had all but abandoned its 'civilized' values upheld in 'The Island' as it subjugated colonies to its will) we make this particularly displeasing observation, perhaps even with a greater degree of remorselessness and cruelty. The hegemonic 'Leader of the Free World' today operates through a world order that subjugates a significantly major section of the global population under its will via economic strangulation. The signs are even more ominous.
If the reason is survival, then it is hard not to find the argument ludicrous in a world that is still quite clearly abundant enough to provide for us all without us having to restore to cannibalism. And if the reason is dominance, and thereby our unquenchable greed and desire for more, then shouldn't our intelligent, civilized and cultured mind have doused such negative instincts by now with the 'layers' of civility that presumably separate us from animals? A friend of mine made a strong point the other day when he claimed that education doesn't make a difference, because in the end we always seek for more, and thereby have an inherent nature of conflict (because we clearly live in an environment with finite resources) and self-destruction. A more optimistic outlook would suggest that the 'layers' that make us civilized are more permanent, and thus a part of our evolution, where Man's nature is not static but subject to change, just like everything in our vast universe.
I hope for our sake that this is true.    

Ramblings on the idea of 'India', texbooks on the indian economy and the Northeast

The idea of a single, coherent India is something that does not come to one naturally. Like the ever-changing landscape that I observe through a tinted train window whenever I travel long distances and look for a common distinguishing feature in vain, the idea of 'India' remains similarly illusive like that common distinguishing feature which I have searched for several times with varying degrees of futility, a particular thing that would say, 'Hey! This is India'. I sometimes feel that maybe the idea is incomprehensible to me because I was born in a nation that has such a distinguishing feature-but then I observe that most Indians have as vague an understanding of the unifying idea behind their nation as I do! The complexity here seems unique, as no other nation with such ethnic, lingual, religious and cultural diversity have a society that is as traditional as 'Indian' society, where civilization continued unbroken for thousands of years, perhaps uniquely so, deeply rooting the contours of division, while at the same time strengthening the knots of unity. However, it is probably best not to understand it after all, as E. M. Forster warns in his novel 'A Passage to India', that a desire to understand it and impose a single idea where none exists only amount to tragedy. Perhaps this explains why sometimes one of India's greatest achievements since independence from British colonial rule, its ability thus far to have maintained national integrity, also seems to be its greatest tragedy.
This may sound strange, even outrageous to many. Seeing that the course of history had made the partition of British India inevitable, Nehru had remarked that a smaller, governable India was better than a large, unwieldy one. More than half a century and a million mutinies(as Naipaul puts it) later, it seems that the word 'smaller' should be preceded by the word 'how', and then we finally have a question that deserves attention. I raise this question because modern India, within its own territory,  are worlds apart, and with each passing day in this 'reforming', 'liberalizing', 'emerging', 'business-friendly' and 'growing' India, the distance between these worlds are increasing. It is as if India exists to serve the vested interests of a few, those who combine with ruthless efficacy the exploitative potential of the numerous divisions in its fragmented society with the idea of a single India where all are equal.
Standard textbooks prescribed for the study of the Indian economy in undergraduate courses of premier institutions like the University of Delhi rarely mention the Northeastern states of India, known as the 'Seven Sisters', in their analysis of the economy. It is as if they don't exist or that they don't matter, despite the fact a substantial portion of the 'Indian' populace resides there. The overwhelmingly singular policy objective of the center towards the northeast has been to impose at all costs the idea that they are a part of that vague, illusive 'India', and these costs are then justified to the the rest of the nation in the name of national integrity. I have often heard from friends about the dismal conditions in which most common people live there, particularly in the populous states of Manipur and Nagaland, about how law and order is almost non-existent and economic opportunities scarce. A system of patronage and corruption encouraged by the center helps to run these states, which would definitely prove to be more costly a method in the long run than the alternative method that involves a more appealing and long-lasting approach, i. e., through true economic development.
The idea of India can survive only through something that commonly acts as a distinguishing feature. There could be nothing better than this feature being economic opportunity and true development, for and of its people, whether in the northeast, south, Maoist-affected, rural or urban India, in the India of the Rich and in the India of the Poor. Otherwise, as Forster had ominously written, the only feature that would bind the idea of India would be 'the over-arching, all-encompassing sky', indifferent to the plight of men below, and Nehru's 'smaller' India would be on the next most logical path of getting even smaller.

First Bite

   The bus was chugging along lazily one fine winter morning as I sat at the window seat, staring without focus at the dusty panorama of the north Indian state of Haryana-the six-lane expressway, till recently a mule path, that still served manual vehicles drawn by bullocks simultaneously with motorized vehicles like the one I was in, malls that sprung like weed among fields  of endless greenery, liquor stores, toll booths, dirty bazaars with sleazy eateries, village hovels and their barely-clad inhabitants, BMWs, private engineering colleges, lecherous motels, overloaded trucks, herds of traffic-congesting cattle, industrial chimneys emitting smoke purposefully, offensive hoardings as well as well-meaning ones serving public interests, tractors and steamrollers and strange-looking construction machinery, family of five on a scooter, tiny islands of soon-to-be-felled trees, hustling and bustling concrete jungles with massive webs of entangled overhead wires, filthy  urchins and one-legged dogs, more fields of green crops to sooth the eye from the onslaught of vicious change, unfinished fly-overs and dug-up earth...the image seems incoherent to the point of being bizarre, but it is precisely what one sees and indeed feels when travelling through 'emerging India'...bizarre.
   I looked on at the familiarly unfolding scenery with disinterest when my wandering mind suddenly recalled the image of a delicious chocolate cake. The idea of creating a blog to share my rambling thoughts and observations had been at the back of mind that entire morning, but the image of this cake convinced me that I should set about doing it as soon as possible. I know it sounds strange, but sometimes there are moments when strange, wandering thoughts and incoherent images focus on interesting things. I remembered that as a child, I preferred the cream that coated the cake and wondered why do they bother making the other, less delicious parts. As a result of this seemingly idiosyncratic preference, I always savored the cream and grudgingly ate the remainder out of want for nothing better to eat. But with time, I figured that the cream, when eaten with the cake, doesn't taste bad at all, if not better than having the cream seperately. I don't really remember when this change took place, but I think it was when I actually ventured into taking a bite of both simultaneously and let my taste buds experience something different. The more I thought about it, the more sense it made. Like the progress from a tiny nibble at the cream to a wholesome bite of a cake that reveals its true taste, we understand things piece by piece, layer by layer, as time goes on. We learn when we venture a little further than we previously dared to. My reason for creating this blog is somewhat similar. A space to share what I sometimes think is worth sharing; when I feel that my fellow people can identify with some of the things I have felt or observed, and find it to be of some value.