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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment