“My Country”- Right or Wrong?

I am reminded of a parable of Mencius, the disciple of Confucius. If a child were on the brink of falling into the well, we spontaneously reach out to save it. And this is not done to win public acclaim or to merit the gratitude of the parents of the child. It is simply something which our humanity deep down within us impels us to do.

Affluence creates a weak person and a fragile culture. On the other hand, the confrontation with human suffering and response in terms of compassion has developed in the victims some of the values we require to sustain a different world - solidarity, humaneness, the spirit of sharing, technique of survival, readiness for risk-taking, endurance and steely determination in the midst of adversities. In the world of the victims, unlike in the world of globalisation, the good does not get identified with the “successful”. The good and the just are the ideals the world needs to relentlessly strive after.

There ought to be a moral restraint on nationalism. This is not only because of the violence, oppression, war and destruction an emotionally charged national chauvinism could cause to others who do not belong to the nation, but also because of the oppression nationalism could cause to the poor and the weak within its own boundaries.

One of the unfortunate things we are witnessing today in global politics is the absence of even a modicum of ethics and moral consideration. The Chanakkiyan or Machiavellian approach to power and expediency seem to rule the political realm under the guise of nationalism. The primary way of practising ethics in the ambit of politics in general and nationalism in particular is transcendence and openness. The ‘religious’ character with which nationalism is vested could blinker the vision and call for allegiance of the people for violence, crimes and inhumanity. There will be no hesitation to resort to ethnic cleansing, in order to uphold the ‘nation’ and its interests. Under the label of “anti-national” or “unpatriotic”, critical voices that awaken a nation from the nationalist passion to reason and sobriety, could be stifled. Like Noam Chomsky there are, fortunately, men and women in every country who critically challenge an uncritical and anti-humanist nationalism. 

The secular ideal of democracy is often procedural and formal. If democracy is the prevalence of the will of the majority in governance, then this is a very dangerous conception, since under the cloak of democracy what would happen is the “tyranny of the majority”. Rightly did John Stuart Mill in his time raise the critical question, “how could a minority be free when it is forced to conform to the will of the majority?” The institution of formal democracy could co-habit with religious nationalism of the majority. In this way, religious nationalism becomes even more dangerous, because it can easily wear the democratic mask to impose itself on the rest of the identities in a polity. All this shows a mere liberal and secular nationalism alone cannot respond to the issue of diversity and plurality of identities.

This Article Is A Part Of The Utopia Series. Utopia is not an unreal figment of imagination, or a chimera we chase in futility. It is the projection of another real order of things, a different set of values, and a new shape of the world and society. The suppressed identities, women, minorities, Dalits and tribals and all those who are marginalised in any way project their utopias. Utopia leaps out from the shoulder of may struggles to glimpse and experience the new and the different. Critique is indissociable from utopias.

Collected & Contributed By- 

Agriti Shrivastava,

Article Analyst, FSA

CNLU, Patna

Read more »

Defining the Nation and Interpreting History

        Defining India and its history is something like the definition given by an Irishman when he was asked what the word “trousers” would be- singular or plural. Loud and clear came forth the answer, ‘It is singular at the top and plural at the bottom!’[1] The self-understanding of India and its history is undergoing today precisely this experience of singular and plural. But unfortunately, instead of arriving at a balance between unity and plurality, the developments at the political, cultural, religious, economic and ideological levels are tilting towards a singular view of India. Consequently, what is projected as the history of India is a history that presents itself, in fact, as a view from the top, unmindful of the plurality and diversity at the bottom.

Today, we, as a nation, are involved in a struggle for the past. This struggle in great part also defines our different conceptions about the nation. Even more, it portrays the conflicts of power among different segments of the people.

The communities comprising the nation may have different backgrounds and origins. But the point is that today they are a nation together, and none of them could be excluded. It is in their mutuality and interchange that they produce meaning and significance of the nation. When the attempt is made to define the nation and its history in majoritarian terms, it raises the critical question: Whose Nation? Whose History? Faced with the ideology of majoritarianism, marginal groups like the Dalits and tribals raise critical questions, so too other linguistic and ethnic groups.

What we have attempted then is to shift the attention to the everyday life of the people and to break out of the frame of reference in which the past is created to serve a political, social and cultural agenda of domination. The interaction and transactions of the past in which identities were not rigidly defined and the borders were open and flexible. Further, the interactions among communities were never solely reduced to religious identity; instead there were many layers of identities with which to relate and interact. Moreover, there were many regional and local narratives and histories. These have been an integral part of the life of the marginal people like the Dalits and the tribals. A reconstruction of the past taking into account all these aspects, is the necessary condition for the diverse groups to own the nation and its history. The reconstruction of history will go a long way to remove the alienation and exclusion being practiced today in the name of majoritarianism.

The everyday approach to the history of nation serves also to draw out the ethical implications of historiography. Besides respecting professional propriety in historical enquiry, which is an ethical demand, the reconstruction of the past should have as its interpretative key the building up of communities. The social and communitarian responsibility on the part of historians is an ethical obligation as well. Consequently, the manipulation and exploitation of history for communal conflicts is an unethical practice. Any imputation of guilt and accusation drawn from an ideological reading of the past and levelled against particular groups or communities is not ethically justifiable but politically dangerous.

Finally, we are at the moment of re-defining both the nation and its history. We cannot allow the nation and history to be hijacked by any one single group, community or religion. To create a nation of communities is a long-term project which requires new criteria and new terms of reference.   

---

[1] The anecdote is from A.K. Ramanujan Cf. Sunil Khilnani, The Idea of India, Penguin Books, Delhi, 1999, p.6

This Article Is A Part Of The Utopia Series. Utopia is not an unreal figment of imagination, or a chimera we chase in futility. It is the projection of another real order of things, a different set of values, and a new shape of the world and society. The suppressed identities, women, minorities, Dalits and tribals and all those who are marginalised in any way project their utopias. Utopia leaps out from the shoulder of may struggles to glimpse and experience the new and the different. Critique is indissociable from utopias.

Collected & Contributed By- 

Agriti Shrivastava,

Article Analyst, FSA

CNLU, Patna

Read more »

Rethinking Nationalism with the Poor

             Religious nationalism is spreading fast in several parts of the world. In each context, there are specific reasons for the ascendancy of this brand of nationalism. It has engendered serious conflicts and violence. It is a permanent threat to the survival of the poor and the marginalised, their identity and dignity. The new avatar of nationalism creates serious polarisation in terms of insider/outsider, we/they. Furthermore, it has a dangerous homogenising tendency that does not allow for difference and pluralism. It functions by exploiting religious symbols, rites and myths. In the process, it violently co-opts or suppresses other identities. On the other hand, secular nationalism is supposed to transcend the sphere of religion and religious identities. It is centred on a separation of religion and politics in its strict interpretation, and equi-distance of the state from religion in its more liberal version. It relies on the basic equality of all citizens. The crucial question is whether secular nationalism could be a response to religious nationalism and can stem its tide. 

While secular nationalism has its own points of strength, it seems to be inadequate to face up to the challenge posed by religious nationalism. Specifically, there are many doubts about its capacity to defend the cause of the poor and the oppressed. There is, in the first place, a general opinion that “secular” is a Western concept that is ill at ease in our Indian context. The conception of neutrality implied in the understanding of secular is formal in nature. We need a substantive conception of equality that would take into account the incontestable fact of plurality of groups and identities, especially the vulnerable groups. Granting that this is possible within the frame of secular nationalism, we cannot, however, ignore the fact that the “secular” has become a highly debated question when it comes to interpretation. As a result, strangely though, the religious nationalists themselves could claim to be true secularists and brand others as “pseudo-secularists”. I mean to say that the secular approach is preoccupied so much with the negativities of religion that it is not able to tap the humanistic message religions have to offer.

We need to move in the direction of an inclusive humanistic nationalism that would uphold the cause of the poor and the marginalised. It will create the space for religious insights to play their humanising role in society. Humanistic nationalism suggests the particularity of nation and fuses it with the universalistic vision which is very important for the encounter of people and culture. It will ensure, within the nation itself, that no group of people is neglected or left out. It will be particularly attentive to the marginalised and vulnerable groups by setting in operation social equity.

Finally, one of the avenues open for a religion’s involvement is the collaboration with new social movements, which go in the direction of secularity and social equity. These movements try to bring ethics in action and transcend the narrow boundaries of caste and creed. Its support to humanistic nationalism would be in the form of fostering pluralism that is very crucial for harmonious and just inter-relationship among the groups and identities subsumed under the nation. 

Collected & Contributed By- 

Agriti Shrivastava,

Article Analyst, FSA

CNLU, Patna

Read more »

Religions and Martyrdom Today

     Religions claim the prerogative to illumine matters that are of an absolute order such as life and death. The mode of these explanations, given the mysterious nature of these realities themselves, has been in terms of symbols, myths and rituals which transcend the realms of critical reason. These forms of explanation seek to reconcile the contradictions in actual life-experience. Martyrdom is one such religious mode of explaining what appears to be humanly a tragedy. The construct of ‘martyr’ comes from a particular community which claims him or her to be someone who tenaciously upholds even unto death all those ideals it cherishes. In all religious traditions the ideal of martyrdom has undergone an evolution with reference to the concrete historical context. We note also in all major religious traditions an interiorisation and spiritualisation of martyrdom in such a way that this ideal is made accessible to all the believers of the particular religious community.  

The victimhood, pain, suffering and death associated with martyrdom are mirrored in political realities. The ideology, moods and motivations provided by religion are today transposed to the sites of ethnic, regional and national conflicts. As a result, we face serious ambiguities which surround martyrdom. As with religion, the spectrum of martyrdom has become extremely wide in its operation and interpretation. Martyrdom, like religion, stands for the noblest and also for the most heinous crimes human beings are capable of- all in the name of God.

Religious traditions need to counterbalance the classical ideal of martyrdom with education for tolerance and peace. Today, blowing out of proportion the martyr ideal could foster religious fundamentalism and turn religions into the very opposite of what they claim to be- agents of peace. We do not need “martyrs” of religious bigotry and obscurantism. Today the world needs witnesses (original meaning of “martyr”) of love, justice, peace and tolerance, who will be ready to sacrifice their very selves for greater understanding among peoples, nations and religions. These martyrs will not be the possession of any one particular religious community. They will belong to the whole of humankind since through their sacrifice, steadfastness, fidelity and fortitude, they bear witness to the universal values of truth, love, justice and peace. Could the various religious traditions jointly create the climate for the emergence of such universal martyrs? It involves rethinking martyrdom. That is where we need to begin.

 This Article Is A Part Of The Utopia Series. Utopia is not an unreal figment of imagination, or a chimera we chase in futility. It is the projection of another real order of things, a different set of values, and a new shape of the world and society. The suppressed identities, women, minorities, Dalits and tribals and all those who are marginalised in any way project their utopias. Utopia leaps out from the shoulder of may struggles to glimpse and experience the new and the different. Critique is indissociable from utopias.

Collected & Contributed By- 

Agriti Shrivastava,

Article Analyst, FSA

CNLU, Patna

Read more »

Consumerism in a Society of Negations

Is India shining? The irresistible consumerism gives the appearance of an India on the highway of progress and of becoming a super-power. The actual examination of the consumerist culture, however, has shown the deeper issues and questions lurking behind the facade of such slogans and impressionistic assessment of society. The social dynamics of consumerism tells us how it is part of a culture that is focussed on the enjoyment of the present moment, here and now, and how the form takes over the content, and aesthetics precedes ethical considerations. Consumerism serves as a means to identity-building and serves the purpose of affirming social status.

Conspicuous consumerism has serious repercussions on the poor of our society and also the natural environment. This twin concern is the primary basis for serious critique of an unbridled consumer culture, which can break the sustainability barriers of nature as well as of society. Depletion of natural resources and its degradation through the production, use and disposal of consumer goods calls for an alternative model of development. The control and checks the consumer movements can have over the production and marketing of goods regarding their ecological sustainability will serve as an important restraint. At bottom, in the ethical critique of consumerism what we need to do is to challenge the philosophy that believes the promotion of self-interest and personal ambitions as the way to progress and development. Ostentatious display of wealth and wallowing in luxuries in a country in which millions wallow below poverty line amounts to further humiliation of the poor. Consumer culture also brings in the challenge of self-transformation through a centrifugal movement towards the other.

Moralising is certainly not the most effective kind of response to consumerism. In fact, this could be counter-productive. Educational institutions have an important role to play. For example, what the colleges could do is to create a proper intellectual and cultural climate for the development of a critical sense and deep social and political consciousness among young students and the faculty. The proper response would be one that triggers the critical sense of the youth. It is they who have to put into operation their active agency. Given their idealism and the capacity for sacrifice, the boys and girls in the colleges and schools, far from requiring adults to protect them from consumerist culture, could transform themselves into active agents who critically challenge consumerism.

It is true that for many young people today, the ideal is to make money, and that too very quickly. For not a few, their icons would be a Bill Gates, or even a Harshad Mehta. There are very few who would like to be a Nelson Mandela, or a Medha Patker. But then we should remember that human beings not only have the tendency to fulfil their desires and aspirations, that is being exploited by consumer culture; but there is also a deep-seated capacity for selflessness and sacrifice, especially among the youth. The formative process of the youth today calls for even deeper involvement with the life of the poor and the marginalised. One of the greatest sons of India, Gautam Buddha, was challenged to leave behind the luxuries and the comforts of princely life, when human suffering and deprivation confronted him. I am convinced that greater social sensitivity and exposure to the struggles of the poor will stir the young students to exercise their critical sense vis-a-vis the prevailing consumer culture, and turn them into beacons of hope for a new and transformed society. 

This Article Is A Part Of The Utopia Series. Utopia is not an unreal figment of imagination, or a chimera we chase in futility. It is the projection of another real order of things, a different set of values, and a new shape of the world and society. The suppressed identities, women, minorities, Dalits and tribals and all those who are marginalised in any way project their utopias. Utopia leaps out from the shoulder of may struggles to glimpse and experience the new and the different. Critique is indissociable from utopias. - See more at: http://sbfsa.blogspot.in/2013/11/minorities-in-age-of-globalisation.html#sthash.011yqV4U.dpuf

 This Article Is A Part Of The Utopia Series. Utopia is not an unreal figment of imagination, or a chimera we chase in futility. It is the projection of another real order of things, a different set of values, and a new shape of the world and society. The suppressed identities, women, minorities, Dalits and tribals and all those who are marginalised in any way project their utopias. Utopia leaps out from the shoulder of may struggles to glimpse and experience the new and the different. Critique is indissociable from utopias.

Collected & Contributed By- 

Agriti Shrivastava,

Article Analyst, FSA

CNLU, Patna

This Article Is A Part Of The Utopia Series. Utopia is not an unreal figment of imagination, or a chimera we chase in futility. It is the projection of another real order of things, a different set of values, and a new shape of the world and society. The suppressed identities, women, minorities, Dalits and tribals and all those who are marginalised in any way project their utopias. Utopia leaps out from the shoulder of may struggles to glimpse and experience the new and the different. Critique is indissociable from utopias. - See more at: http://sbfsa.blogspot.in/2013/11/minorities-in-age-of-globalisation.html#sthash.011yqV4U.dpuf

Read more »

Minorities in the Age of Globalisation

Minority is so to say a “cohort concept” or a concept which envelops a cluster of issues. Far from being a matter of the past, minorities have become a very actual issue affecting the politics of many nations. The approach taken towards minorities is so important because the future shape of a nation and its destiny often depends on this. Globalisation has further problematised the issue of minorities and is changing its configuration, bringing in new experiences.

We hear strident voices of opposition and even rejection of minority rights. But a look at the global level will suggest how our world is trying to come to terms with this issue with ever new means. They include legal ones to protect the minorities by recognising their identity, culture, religion, and their rights to establish and maintain their institutions, and so on. The trajectory of the development shows that it will not be long before minority rights become part of the international law binding on all the states. Ofcourse, there is room for fine-tuning and negotiating within the framework of the Constitution. However, a summary opposition and rejection of minority rights can be sustained neither by reason nor by global experience.

Minority rights may not be looked at either as concessions or as defence, but must be viewed as realisation of democracy in pluralistic societies and as a way to bring about social equity. For this, we need to affirm basically the right of communities, which cannot be reduced to individual rights. These communities are not to be reduced simply to religious communities. We need to focus today specially on the economically, socially and culturally marginalised minorities. The special provisions in terms of reservation or affirmative action are in keeping with the democratic spirit, and the sense of social justice that should animate the nation. Finally, the thorny question of Uniform Civil Code for certain religious communities as the Muslims in India, deserves to be considered with historical perspective and with due account to the need of a certain legal pluralism for a country of such diversity as India.  Uniform Civil Code is a project and a process.

This Article Is A Part Of The Utopia Series. Utopia is not an unreal figment of imagination, or a chimera we chase in futility. It is the projection of another real order of things, a different set of values, and a new shape of the world and society. The suppressed identities, women, minorities, Dalits and tribals and all those who are marginalised in any way project their utopias. Utopia leaps out from the shoulder of may struggles to glimpse and experience the new and the different. Critique is indissociable from utopias.

Collected & Contributed By- 

Agriti Shrivastava,

Article Analyst, FSA

CNLU, Patna

Read more »