[Reader-list] APJ letter

[Kshmendra Kaul]

Dear Rakesh
 
India is not a Nation-State which I think is also your understanding. 
 
Calling India a Nation-State is a (Oh! so very casually) much favoured definition of India used by many on this list usually accompanied by some or the other kind of attack or dismissal of India. 
 
India is a composite of various ethnicities, languages, cultures, religions etc etc etc etc. India is not a Nation-State.
 
Your altered term State-Nation is interesting but India is just simply a  is a country. There are other countries in the world. The world is distributed (as of now) into territorial units called countries with areas of common use by common consent amongst the countries.
 
If there is a loose interpretation of the term Nation-State to be used for India, then by that reckoning every country is a Nation-State (or State-Nation)
 
This is not a criticsm but additional comments from me.
 
You wrote """" ..... nation-states are a reality (or state-nation in case of India if I may say so), which can not be washed away. However, this does not mean that we should go around being nationalists. Nationalism is not going to solve the problems of our people (by this I mean the people of our nation/state here). """""""
 
What is wrong with being a Nationalist? What else would you like the citizens of a country to be if not nationalists? How else can one be sensitive to every 'ill/need' in the country no matter how far removed you are from it? 
 
If being a Nationalist is just simply a slogan it is a meaningless one.
 
If being a Nationalist means promoting 'Nationalism' that defines it as being particular to only one single group in India (making India into a singular identity Nation-State, then such Nationalism is to be condemned because that can only lead to fragmentation of India and therefore there is nothing Nationalist about it. 
  
Completely disagreeing with what you have written, Nationalism is a good vehicle through which to address (solving is at a distance) the problems of the country. If you are not a Nationalist, you cannot be aware of or sensitive to the composite nature of India. 
 
Does the concept of the Nation have primacy over any other consideration? Yes, to my mind, it does have.
 
This does not mean (without going into specific examples) that wherever there is a 'substantive conflict with the Nation' to be found that there should be unthinking repression of such conflicting positions in the name of Primacy of the Nation. My reasoning for that is quite simple and goes back to True Nationalism being aware of and sensitive to the composites. You cannot in the name of the Nation, act or speak in a manner that creates turmoil or breaks up the Nation. That is not being Nationalist.
 
Only the elements of Nature and the Forces of Nature do not respect the boundaries of Nations/Countries. Every other interaction between the people of the world is through National/Country identities.  
 
It amuses me when people talk derisively and disparagingly about Nationalists.
 
These very people talk about the ills of globalisation and rightly so. 
 
The 'World is one Village' is a promotion that best suits the Multinational Entities who seek Profits/Control all over the globe ignoring  considerations of what toll this extracting of Profits takes. Only a Nationalist attitude can serve as shield against this.
 
I am glad that I am a Nationalist. 
 
Kshmendra


--- On Tue, 5/12/09, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] APJ letter
To: "bipin" <aliens at dataone.in>
Cc: "sarai-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>, "c-positive group" <noreply at googlegroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2009, 10:06 PM

Dear Bipin (and all)

I agree and yet also not agree with what Mr. Kalam has said in the
above speech. Let me elaborate on what I agree and on what I don't
agree.

Kalam jee was chosen the president by the BJP, and ironically also has
views which are also very closely related to the BJP's views on how
the people of India should be: hardcore nationalists. I can understand
that in today's times, nation-states are a reality (or state-nation in
case of India if I may say so), which can not be washed away. However,
this does not mean that we should go around being nationalists.
Nationalism is not going to solve the problems of our people (by this
I mean the people of our nation/state here).

I agree with Kalam jee when he says that Indians tend to crib about
things rather than doing something about it. And that is one of the
reasons I personally believe that the present elections, the idea of
exhorting middle classes to just go out and vote is of no use,
particularly since voting in itself is no end. It is just one of the
means to achieve the end, which is development. And all these
campaigns don't focus on educating our citizens to actually make the
politicians more accountable, the system more accountable, the
bureaucrats and the judiciary more accountable.

Hence, even if the voting is 100%, it's useless.

He is also right, that let us start doing things rather than
chitchatting among ourselves. Equally the view that people should
first set themselves as example before exhorting others is equally
true.

However, unlike him, I don't wish to do this to make India a strong
nation or a superpower. Far from it. I want to do this because it
would ultimatley help the people of India. We have all seen what a
superpower is, in the form of America. We have seen how since 2000 to
2008, it has misused whatever the power it had, right from the
response to 11th September 2001, to Bush's farewell being celebrated
as it led to the rise of Obama. We have equally seen the tragedies of
a scale unseen in earlier conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. And now,
the Af-Pak region is more unsafe than it was in 2001 (Don't forget the
fact that the real reason it is unsafe is because of the Taliban,
another US-ISI creation).

And I don't think we are going to be anyhow different from them. The
best example is our cricket board, the richest cricket boards out of
all in the world (i.e. the nations in which cricket is played). I
still remember how during 2008, we had the 'Monkey' controversy, where
it was alleged that Harbhajan Singh, one of our cricket players, had
called Andrew Symonds, an Australian player 'monkey'. The ironic part
is that from what transpired out, it was stated that actually
Harbhajan had said 'maa ki' (which means he was abusing Symonds'
mother) rather than 'monkey' (him for his looks or may be one can say
race).

And then, to add to our cricket team's dismay, we had three wrong
decisions taken against us. But how did we respond?

We had Sharad Pawar, a mainstream politician heading the BCCI then (he
still heads now). Under him, the BCCI stated that we will come back
off the tour if the decision is not taken to our satisfaction. Nobody
has ever blackmailed the ICC for this. What's more, we asked the
umpires to be changed. Never before in a test match series has this
ever happened. But we all managed this, because we had money. And
what's more, the people around me were saying that we are a cricketing
superpower, we are the richest board in the world, we can and should
do as we please.

If this is what we will do as a cricketing superpower, God knows what
we can do as a political superpower like say America. Therefore, I am
genuinely not interested in seeing India as a superpower which
dictates to other nations, loses their trust and friendship, and makes
the lives of people across the world that much more difficult.

Secondly, since Kalam jee is talking about a developed nation, I think
he should equally define development. The reason is that different
people have different conceptions of development. And all these have
to be taken into consideration before we come to certain conclusions.
For me, the development we wish to carry about, with SEZ's and opening
up of the economy without looking at its' impact on the rural India
and helping the poor and the downtrodden, is of no use and we should
stop it, and change or modify it so that all are benefited. It is
tough, but certainly it would be better.

On a positive note, I agree with his point that we have to look at
positivity as well. But that does not mean one neglects issues of
injustice, including that injustice being meted out to Palestinians by
the Israeli attacks. Positivity is not there because our system is
really in a mess and we are not doing a thing about it. I remember
Shahrukh Khan from Swades who says ' agar hum sab kehte rahe ki yeh
desh barbaad ho jayega, to ek din yeh desh wakai mein barbaad ho
jayega. aur is ke zimmedar mai hoonga, aap honge, aap sab, hum sab.'

And finally, it is not necessary for every citizen to think what
he/she has done for India. In Ashoka and Akbar's rule, there was no
India, and yet they helped the people. So, it's the state's
responsibility to help its people, for after all it is formed with
their support. Regarding their duties, it's to monitor whether the
state is giving adequate help or not, ensure adequate help is given at
all times, and to modify and change the way that help is required if
needed.

So therefore, no need for people to think what they have done for
India compulsorily, although if someone thinks about it (like Shahrukh
in Swades), I am happy. (Not that I am sad if someone doesn't, at
least he discharges his duty (or even she), that is fine).

Regards

Rakesh
_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in
the subject header.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>