Suddenly for some reason I am seized with doubts about my own country. Is it because I never read the news very thoroughly back when I was in India? Has my sudden separation from India suddenly and Bollywood-ishtyle-ly inspired in me a desire to stay up-to-date? Or is it merely the fact that events in recent times have taken a turn for the worse?
Of course, that India is not utopia is obvious. Nor are all bureaucrats, politicians and the like benign. Nor is the general public sensible, or even sympathetic. This is not to say that I am willing to ignore all the glaring inequities that exist in the country, and that seem to grow with development, or the fact that in human development India ranks far far below. Yet, somehow the image in my mind was of a country, and a government, trying to take care of the people, in spite of its flaws. I always kind of assumed that we might be dumb, stupid and selfish, but nevertheless we were somehow in the same boat.
Two things have contributed to my growing doubts. The first was Arundhati Roy's comments about Kashmir, and the second was a talk I recently attended about human rights violations in Kashmir. Probably human rights abuses happen in almost every part of the country, in some form of the other; what shocked me was the constant reference to India as a "State", sometimes even as an "occupying power" that was systematically perpetrating these violations. It was weird to hear about the "Government of India" in the same vein that we used to hear about the "British Empire" in our school history classes. Are we suddenly an imperial power come to rule all the innocent Kashmiris, tribals and poor people, as Roy seems to make it out to be?
But who is "We"? What is the identity of this country that I call India? Am I not as much a part of it as a farmer in Andhra Pradesh, or Manipur, or Kashmir? Do I not share the identity of being an Indian with all these people? Why these doubts and questions and the injustices being perpetrated by "the Government of India"? Why is the problem suddenly external? Why do these walls suddenly crop up between the "have's" and the "have nots"? Or rather, why do these walls suddenly take the form of national, race or caste boundaries, as if somehow independence from "the ruler" automatically implies upliftment for "the ruled"?
I am not taking the side of the "Government of India", or the big "Corporations" or all those people upon whom we have agreed to place the blame. Nor am I attempting to take a stand on Roy's, or anybody else's, opinions about whether Kashmir should be independent or not. All I am asking is that, when every human being in the world needs the same basic rights to well-being and life, why are always battle lines drawn? How come that there is always that ruler who is a tyrant and the people who are exploited, and how come that no matter how many revolutions and freedom struggles come and go, the exploited always remain the exploited? Is it ever possible that there is "good governance", that the society is just and equitable, and that development reaches the lowest rung of the ladder as much as(and hopefully more than) it reaches the highest rung?
Did we not, when we became independent as a nation, found ourselves on principles of equality and liberty? Where then do such questions come from? Why are we not one nation on the arduous path of development; why are we a million nations fighting ourselves?
3 comments:
Have wanted to write on this for a long time.
The idea of India is becoming more fragile by the day. Half of the nation wants separation, the other half wants a new state and/or more autonomy.
As for human rights violations, the situation in the North East is more pathetic than Kashmir. President's rule at the drop of a hat, brutal suppression of dissidents, racism, pilfering of resources and being forgotten when it comes to sharing the pie. That's their lot. As an aside, how would you like it if you visit the nation's capital for the first time and the people leer at you like you are an oriental prostitute?
Arundhati Roy is a bitch though. If anything else, she's not helping the situation one bit. She keeps parroting all these causes without suggesting solutions.
I will blog on it someday.
I agree with your views on Arundhati Roy; I guess the only role she plays is to cause random agitations in society...
Yes, the situation in the north-east is arguably more severe..I chose Kashmir to talk about because the disconnect between what the situation is in Kashmir and what the general public's knowledge is about the situation is (at least emotionally) greater. But again, it's the same story; somehow Indians can't seem to find anything to unite over anymore...
I was in Kashmir when the protests started and was lucky enough to get out of the "paradise" in time. There was absolutely no indication of what was about to happen. The reason, I believe, is underdevelopment and unemployment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War#Youth_bulge_theory), which is the result of constant strife and terrorism. Its these missing "basic rights to well-being and life" and a belief that it is because of GOI, that result in this kind of a conflict.
Post a Comment