How will you show affection for you country publicly?” shouts TOI, on the eve of our Republic Day.That day, I stood to examine my thoughts on Nationhood. How relevant, important, misrepresented or misunderstood is it?
When was the first nation born? How did the concept of a Nation take shape? Which was the first ‘country’ to divide earth? How many lives have been lost till date protecting these imaginary lines on a map? How many times have these lines changed, many a times belittling the so-called ‘sacrifice’ of humans? Is the death of a soldier not just another surrender at the altar of our bloated and imaginary egos - egos that are as imaginary as the lines on paper?
In fact, while examining the concept of a Nation, two related thoughts cross the mind: the concept of Religion and that of the armed forces (or the concept of a soldier).
We take great pride in concepts of Religion, Nationhood and The Armed Forces.
So much so, that these three concepts are often considered sacrosanct, holier than the holiest grail. To question them, their origins, their purposes and to ask if they are in fact serving their true raison d’etre is considered sacrilegious.
We shall inspect these associated threads in a series of posts here.
But first, lets just talk about The Nation.
Various perspectives that run through the mind while examining the concept are:
Nationhood versus individuality
Nationhood versus individual identity
Nationhood versus individual progress
Nationhood versus individual excellence
Nationhood versus individual sacrifice
Nationhood versus The State & Forms of Government
Nationhood versus Individuality
Ayn Rand was perhaps the first proponent of the concept of objectivism.
If everyone lived up to one’s utmost potential, being completely devoted to oneself and ones capabilities, only then, would the world witness uninhibited and quintessential progress.
This also spelt Liberation. Liberation from so-called norms set up in various forms by numerous structures involving multitudes of congregating people.
These structures could be given various names - societies, unions, organizations, and of course - countries.
And the most common argument for the formation of such congregations is that humans are in-fact, ‘social’ animals. So, taking this as a birthright and forming a universal premise out of it, we could build any number of groups, give them various names and shade them according to our level of convenience - and mediocrity. Anyone who wishes to tear that invisible cover is, well, challenging the ‘righteous’. To go against what is essentially ‘right’ is downright foolish, downright evil.
However, setting up this background, let us narrow down to what my reservations are against the concept of nationhood in this regard.
First and foremost, let us put down why would a line be drawn on the face of the earth to give birth to a nation?
I guess, it started off from humans trying to protect what they felt is just their own. The first farmer would perhaps have built a boundary across his land and claimed his stake on it. Anyone who wanted to utilize that resource would have to be essentially stronger than him. It obviously did not matter that they could, in fact, collaborate and perhaps get more by sharing that piece of land. Driven by part insecurity, part ego, and partly the instinct to secure his and his family’s survival, he would live to protect his land - and perhaps die in that endeavor as well.
As people live in groups, this concept extends to form a community. A community forms a village. Villages form states and nations.
But what drives these formations - in the root of it all - is that sense of insecurity, an ersatz ego.
However, it does not stop there. Somewhere down the line, greed takes over.
‘What is necessary?’ is no longer the question.
“Accumulate as much as your might lets you own” becomes the mantra. Wars are waged. People die. And all this then becomes a part of what is called ‘culture’. Our values are twisted and it is taught to us in a synchronized yet sinister framework, that it is glorious to die for them!
Land becomes one of the leading causes for man to abandon his ‘animal’ instincts. Animals kill only when they are in dire need. Humans begin to build false edifices in their collective conscience, and slowly, this entire system becomes a norm. Everything after that is structured. Everything is given a legal name, a moral justification.
Humans are grouped and trained to kill. An Army is formed. It is now glorious not only to be a part of that structure, but the more you kill the better it is. You are in fact a protagonist if you have ‘sacrificed’ your life for the sake of that structure. You are given incentives to do so. We form awards and we give medals.
Slowly the structure evolves, to such levels that many brains are being consumed and devoted just for the ‘betterment’ of this structure. We build more sophisticated weaponry. In fact, people who help in advancing the capability to more demonic levels are greater heroes. A nuclear scientist becomes a nation’s icon, its first citizen beyond comparison.
I remember a run-of-the-mill flick once posing the question, why did someone design and build a bullet? After all, it is only capable of taking a life!
But such scientific advances are given more grants. The ‘nation’ spends two-thirds of its GDP in ‘defense’ related expenditure.
This is perhaps a good spot to introduce the other major perspective:
Nationhood versus The State & Forms of Government
Bimal Jalan in his book, The Future of India: Politics, Economics, Governance, makes a distinction between ‘The State’ and ‘The Government of the day’.
The State, he says, is a utopian concept designed to extract the best out of a given pool of resources. These resources, be it land, the people or other raw materials such a minerals etc., would have to be consumed in such a way that it is beneficial for the society as a whole. This would require a framework to be built around the land, which The State governs. More often than not, this framework advocates generally accepted and universal principles of goodness. We could call The Constitution a representation of this framework.
However, the elegance with which these principles are applied in real life depends on The Government of the day. It may often twist and tweak the rules, bend, and sometimes blatantly break them.
How many times have we seen injustice meted out? How many times have ‘tainted’ ministers continued to rule? How many times have people greased their way through the so-called system? Just way too many times!
And this is where the difference between The State and The Government becomes stark.
This is where the very purpose with which a nation was formed is defeated.
To push my point further, let me cite an example.
What comes to the mind when we hear of the word ‘Servant’? Etymologically speaking, a servant is one who ‘serves’. Simple. Right?
Now, append the adjective ‘Government’ to the above.
‘Government Servant’.
What comes to the mind now?
Typically, it is a Babu with unlimited rights. Rights to obscure your own fundamental rights. Generally, he is supremely powerful in his own bastion. Impregnable as it is, you would have to grease the palms of the entire hierarchy before you are even deemed fit to have an appointment such a bastion. In fact, it becomes such a way of life that people have started making comic and sarcastic serials around them. Anticipation of the next episode of Office Office, brings ‘humour’ as its primary expected ingredient, rather than ‘apathy’ or simple, plain ‘abashed-ness’.
Nehru, in his now-famous Tryst With Destiny speech, made a reference to the ‘seva-bhaav’ (sense of service), which he hoped and expected out of the government servants. However, what we now get is only ‘bhaav’. The concept of ‘seva’ (service) is buried somewhere deep inside the maya of ‘seva’. Service - as an attitude, as a way of life, as a philosophy to be practiced - is out of question!
I don’t quite know where things went wrong.
Concepts were formed with a noble intention, but their execution has been abysmal at best, forcing us to question the very existence of that concept in the first place.
As I said, they’ve become so sacrosanct now, that questioning them itself is an act of blasphemy.
We all applaud a Rang De Basanti. It is cinema. Controversial, but at least it forces some of us to think differently. When will the reel-life ‘shift in thought process’ reflect in real-life?
Or, is it doing so, already?
Also by Hafta
- A walk in the clouds - February 26th, 2007
- Off the beaten path in Toledo - February 26th, 2007
- Lazy French Holiday - January 22nd, 2007
- Mumbai Votes - January 15th, 2007
- Full House Mumbai - December 4th, 2006