(My first political post)
The bloodiest wars in the history of human civilization has been fought on the pretext of passionate nationalism. From the evidence, prima facie , nationalism as a concept seems to be the precursor to imminent destruction. And more often than not, nationalism comes with the package of cultural imperialism.
It is on this context that I am not convinced whether our right wing political parties who harp on the cultural superiority of our ancestors and ask us to be fiercely nationalistic is doing the country a favour or a disfavour. In isolation, being proud of our heritage is good and should be inculcated and appreciated. But that road is fraught with danger. The issue is so sensitive that it could be twisted very easily for pandering to the local sentiment for petty political gains.
Given a free hand, the right wingers would want to go back two centuries into a system which, to them, worked and was responsible for India's truly pluralistic and strong society. They are oblivious to the fact, that preservation of a cultural heritage does not necessitate active usage. Knowledge of the achievements of our predecessors are sufficient. Ask a Scotsman about how they lived, ask an Irish about their way of life, ask an African about their history - in all likelihood they will tell you. Yet they never harped on their ancestral lineage. They still do not. But they are proud humans. Make no mistake about it.
It is important to know that Aryabhatta was a great mathematician, Sushrut was a great surgeon, we had constructed planned cities before anyone ever thought it was possible, sanskrit is still the most scientific language ever designed - but it is pointless to follow what they did, today, blindly without questioning them. If under scrutiny they still hold good, lets use them. If not, remember them with respect and do not be constrained by them.
The freedom of the individual should be of paramount importance. Only that will ensure a free society. Banning events which are not in accordance with our eastern values on the ground of westernization and loss of cultural identity is akin to subversion of fundamental right of expression. And to colour it with the idea of preservation of culture and of nationalism is a calculated insult.
To a nation, to a culture.
The evolution of a society will extract its pound of flesh for good and bad. We have to accept both. Resistance will only be detrimental.
The idea of nationalism as mooted by Narendranath Dutta could possibly be termed as the most comprehensive, most progressive and unbelievably pluralistic. But the problem with an institutionalized dictum backed up by strong religious undertone is that - it is totally dependent on the people running the institution. They might be good today, bad tomorrow and worse the day after.
The only solution is to emphasize the importance of a free thought, even when it questions the fundamentals of our firmest beliefs, which are just a function of time and our acquired knowledge.
Freedom to think, freedom to act, freedom of choice, freedom to express - that is what a nation with rich cultural heritage should stand for. A dissenting voice should be welcomed in spirit and fought by an equally powerful contrary view if the voice happens to compromise our social fabric.
7 comments:
quite right! the recent story of some shiv sena saamna offices being attacked by narayan rane supporters for ridiculing rane is a laughable irony. is this called 'being paid in the same currency'
I resisted this comment, in the hope I would find time to put a post on it... but wht the hell, here goes...
Your definition of "freedom of expression" includes the freedom to offend people's sensibilities, and when such offended people react, you say "Why are you so easily offended? You may make jokes on me, see I don't get offended..."
But then, there are always limits... lemme give you an analogy... I watch porn... my momma knows I do... she lets me have my freedom... but I don't watch porn in my living room, when my momma is sitting there, and then tell her, "Don't be offended... after all, you do have the option of walking out of the room if you don't like it..."
What if momma wants to sit in the living room and not get offended... why isn't she being offered her freedom?
SRK:
If I look at it from the point of view of offending people's sensibilities then whatever I do is going to offend someone or other. Us hisab se to jeena chhor dena parega.
And I don't understand the assumption that if people are given the right to choose or act, they will act irresponsibly ? Initially, the freedom will be misused, but after some time, the market itself will take care of the anomalies and lay out its own unspoken but agreed guidelines.
Now, if both you and your mom wants to be in the living room when the porn is on, then there are two choices - either you leave and watch it in a different room or she leaves. Now who does what is a question of compromise and negotiation. I don't see a question of freedom out here. Both of you are free to choose whatever you want.
Inspite of its overtly free societal structure, even USA has it own moral code of conduct. Certain things are not appreciated and certain things are. And people know what they are. Yet, nobody will stop you if you were to do the unapproved ones by law.
@ "Inspite of its overtly free societal structure, even USA has it own moral code of conduct. Certain things are not appreciated and certain things are."
well, our people also protest against things that they do not appreciate... The US moral code of conduct did not come from the market... it was specified by the State..
jus bcoz the US guys put their flags on their underwear, I don't want to put mine... or a pic of what may be an elephant head for them, but Lord Ganesh for me... on their underwear... I don't care about your freedom of expression... I just don't want ur ass on something that I revere...
@ "whatever I do is going to offend someone or other"
that is precisely where u draw ur limits right... everything tht u eat kills someone or something... a vegan won't eat a chicken, u don't mind a chicken getting killed, a tribal in some barbarian area won't think twice about cutting up a fellow human for a meal... now, each society evolves its own limits right?
If you let the market forces play, there may be a market for human meat... who knows?
If there is a market for human meat, let there be. That would mean that the sensibilities of the people of that place has not yet developed to that extent. Till that point of time, in history, there was a market for human meat.
The US Moral code did come from the market. The laws of a society are a result of the priorities of a market.
You might revere something and I might not. And if I choose to put my ass on it, I don't see how that should hurt you since my intention might not be to hurt you but just that I don't see anything special in it. For me its just another thing to put my ass on. I am not asking YOU to put your ass on that.
You have every right to protest against anything. What we need is a tempered, judicious judgment of protest in a form which adheres to the basic notions of civility which we so proudly claim to be inheritors of and so blatantly crush at every instance.
puttin ur ass on something tht i revere adheres to the basic notions of civility... because you said so?
me protesting that you cannot do it, does not adhere to the basic notions of civility... again, because you said so?
as i said before, that is the problem that i increasingly see with the "liberals"... the "liberals" define what is civil, what is offensive, what is fundamentalist, and then, if someone decides not to adhere to such definitions, they are uncivil barbarians... wonderful!
The notion of civility holds true as much for me as for you. There will definitely be something which I might revere and you will not and if you were to do something which would be termed as 'offensive' to me, I will have to abide by the very same protocols I have laid out.
The question is about sensibilities. Only that defines civility. It is uncivil to cause intentional physical harm to others - that is a given. So is the case with offense. If I purposefully do something which hurts someone, then that is not acceptable. But then instead of blindly jumping the gun, my motive for doing that should be taken into consideration before vilifying me.
You need to give me the space to explain my actions. According to some Tendulkar committed a crime or caused offense to India when he cut a cake which has the nation's flag. Now, if I take your perspective then he should pay for it for he has caused offense ! Inspite of the fact that there are not a lot many people who have served the country better than him.
THAT is the problem with having self proclaimed watchdogs or institutions.
Post a Comment