[Reader-list] APJ letter

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Kshamendra jee (and all)

Interesting mail, and here go my views on it.

1) None of my ideas are original. They are there for people to read
elsewhere. If I get evidences and understanding that they will benefit the
people of the world, then I believe I should support it, and so should
others.

The first time I read that India is a state-nation, was an essay by Linz,
Stefanz  and Yadav (I hopefully say that the names are right). The idea is
that India is a country where there are too many nations (nation means a
land entity having a common culture, language or religion). So all these
nations are together kept by a statist arrangement which is headed at Delhi
and having many organs which penetrate into our very own lives.

Hence, they argue that India is a state-nation, which I accept. I have no
problems with you saying it is a country only.

2) I don't attack nation states simply because it's of no use. These are all
utopian ideas which are never going to succeed. We ultimately have to deal
with a world which has nation states (and some state-nations like India,
Belgium and Spain). Hence, I think that we should concentrate on ideas to
improve the state apparatus internally to ensure it's not as suppressing as
it can be at its worst (like under Indira Gandhi during the Emergency).

3) People should not look at issues from a nationalist perspective
basically. I think this is a huge problem, even in the place from where I
write this mail (Chennai), where there are politicians stating that we
should create a Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka, thereby propagating Tamil
nationalism. There are two reasons I believe we shouldn't be nationalists.

i) The first problem is that nationalism means India first, its people
later. But India is simply a land mass which can be described in maps,
nothing more without its people. And what use is a land mass without any
people? Nothing. So the slogan should be, people first. After all, only when
the people are first, can India be first.

Look at our development schemes. We ask for displacement of people, and we
ask the people not to even demand compensation in the name of nationalism,
as Nehru did in the case of Hirakud dam. Even now those displaced by that
dam have not been rehabilitated. Similarly, in the name of this nationalism,
we have allowed an Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), using which our
armed forces have conducted human right violations of the most worst kind in
our border and other sensitive regions. And we are asked not to abrogate
this act in the name of nationalism. Why so?

Gandhi, if alive today, would have organized a non-cooperation movement
against the Indian State for this.

Ironically, there may be many nationalists who feel today that India is a
soft state. They would also feel that the NDA govt. was wrong to release
three terrorists in Kandahar. But I support that, because I feel that at
that moment, the larger objective should have been to free the passengers of
the IC-814 aircraft (which had been hijacked), and get them safely and
securely to India. Therefore, even if the Congress goes on an all-out attack
on that count against the BJP, I would support the BJP's move. Because we
should be humans first, nationalists later (that is if we are a nationalist,
I am not).

ii) The second reason is that nationalism makes me feel some land is mine,
when I am not related at all to its culture, religion or language. And this
for some -ism which is related to nation! Strange! When I don't know a thing
at all about say Maharashtra or infact our North-East, why should I feel
that it is Indian, or that land rightfully belongs to the Indian state? I
don't have any connection to Marathi culture, language or religious
traditions (nor of the North-East). Then why should I consider that land to
be mine?

4) Also, I am asked to be an Indian first, and a
Hindu/Muslim/Tamil/Marathi/Bengali/Christian/Pathani/someone else later.
Why? I know what it is to be a Hindu or a Muslim (at least the religious
places and the books I am supposed to read). I equally know what it is to be
a Tamil or a Bengali (the language that is). I know what it is to live in
Madhya Pradesh (I am familiar in Hindi and have eaten that food since
childhood and can live in that). But what I don't know is what is Indian?

Even Vedavati jee would not know what is Indian. And I am asked to be an
Indian first! Great! Can please the Indian state define what is Indian at
least?

5) We can understand problems even if we are not nationalists. I can
understand the pain of being displaced both for a dam oustee and a Kashmiri
pandit, and I am not a nationalist. I can understand that nuclear weapons
will bring huge destruction onto the Indian subcontinent, and yet again I am
no nationalist. I can understand that we should follow laws or the areas
where I live and go will turn into a chaos, and yet I ain't no nationalist.

Then what should we be? Humanists and patriotic. Love your land if you feel
you are connected to it through traditions and culture. Unnikrishnan's death
was useful if he was patriotic and felt connected to the land through
culture, through his traditions and customs, and gave up life to protect
that land which he loved for this very reason. (Or he realized that the
vision of the terrorists would only lead to doom and destruction) If he died
for nationalist cause (which is to love land just because it is said by
someone that this is ours, without any personal reason behind it), then his
death, and so also that of others was a waste for useless ideologies.

6) The diversity of India is not related to nationalism. One can understand
that even if one is a foreigner (and that includes Sonia Gandhi). What one
needs is an open mind to understand it, not the narrow minds of our brothers
and sisters supporting Hindutva (who have moral policing and Muslim bashing
as their major goals).

May be I have not answered all your points, but you may understand now why I
don't want to be a nationalist.

Better to be a Rani Lakshmi bai who fought the British for securing the land
to which she was connected, rather than be a nationalist.

Regards

Rakesh