Hmm, I got a reply from KoPoS on this. A lot of valid points were mentioned in that.
Now clubbing together what I have said and Kopos has mentioned, let me try my hand at this topic once more.
As we try to define this particular word, we now come across a lot more confusion.
One definition we came at was: "Patriotism is an emotion, an attitude. Either you have it or you dont. And of course, as per me patriotism is just a sense of belonging to the state and more importantly that of that state belonging to you. Its about the rights but mainly in the responsibilities."
Is this not very close to something called "Religion" ? Religion too may be defined along these lines and said that it is an emotion. An Attitude. We have it or we dont. So if people who donot follow any religion, or who donot know if God exists or not, call themselves "Agnostics" and some who think God does not exist call themselves "Atheists" and still go about their daily lives without any issues, what then do we call people who donot believe in the concept of a nation/patriotism?
Jesus Christ was of this notion, so was Leo Tolstoy and so are so many monks today. In fact near Pondicherry there is an Ashram called as Auroville, where sand from various parts of the world is brought and a huge meditation center in the form of a globe is constructed. To stay there and be a part of Auroville means that you are declaring that you are a world citizen and one who has no allegiance to any specific nation whatsoever and are a brother of the whole world.
So is it that Patriotism is then a "Notion". A notion that has been nurtured and developed over a period of time so that a "Group" of people get together and try to prosper in a structured way. The concept of the whole is more than sum of parts may be of use here. i.e, when 4 people get together and form a team , then they tend to perform better than 4 indivuduals separately.
ok, so we have a definition of patriotism as a matter of convenience for general welfare and upliftment of a group of indivuduals. These indivuduals who swear allegiance to a group then call themselves as members of the nation.
Now, in this kind of a formation it is very fruitful, if by chance/through revolution, the members have a "Common Link", so that they can identify themselves with that link. The link could be that of religion (as in the case of Arab Nations), or it could be that of a common tongue (Chinese), or it could be a common ancestral civilisation and a history of togetherness in geography (Britain).
Now throughout the world, we see that there is a problem when this "Common Link" is missing . That is when we face issues. Take Yogoslavia. Take Sri Lanka. Take Israel/Palestine.
However, there are countries where the common link is missing, and yet still stand united.
For these nations what I ask is, "Is it then a question of time before they break apart ?" - We have seen that during the storm Katrina , in the US, Blacks and Whites clearly stood separated black and white. What we saw in France during the recent communal riots, was an indication that perhaps civilisation is nothing but a set of barbarians eating with Fork and Spoon. In a matter of days riots are breaking out. People of different religion or tongue quarrel.
Coming to the case of India....there are lot of things which we can discuss here as well.
Now if we take common ancestry , I do agree that we had a large part of the nation influenced by the Indus Valley civilisation. But then, why are Pakistan/Bhutan/Nepal/Myanmar and Bangaldesh not part of this nation. They ought to be. If we consider the geography, they were ruled atleast in part during history by Mauryas and Mughals.
In fact, Chola Traders had very good relations with Malays, and to this day Tamil is one of Malaysias Official languages.
So as of the present, history and geography donot completely provide a complete justification for Indias present boundary. In fact, after the 70s war with Pakistan and China, China conquered thousands of square kilometers of J& K and handed them over to Pak, and it even captured parts of Arunachal and Assam ,which it has handed it over back to us. Now, what of those lands? Do they not atleast "Rightfully" belong to India?
The reason for the whole conflict in the J&K would be that the Hindu Rulers during the independence swore allegiance with India, but the populace was largely Muslim, and Pak wants a bite of the cake. I dont take a stand on this issue, saying that either of them is correct, but my question is more toward the concept of "Boundary" and a "Nation".
Israel has taken a mountain peak from Syria and refuses to hand it over....so who does it belong to? is it Israel because it has military might? or is it Syria because of a historical claim to the land?
Tamils want a portion of Lanka and Sinhala claims it is their motherland and no share would be given to anyone.
So are we then seeing a failure of the concept of nations?
We saw USSR break apart. We saw so many other nations disintegrating to smaller ones....
Are we to learn some lesson from that? Is Big necessarily Better?
I would attribute a part of Indias success as a democracy to its concept of States and a State Government. A state government is a sort of mini government within a government which is providing the much needed identity to a person. The concept of a state in a sense comforts people that they too are being fairly represented and are being noticed.
Even here we saw what has happened to Uttaranchal, Jharkand and Chattisgarh and what could potentially happen to Telengana.
So we see that the success of a nation lies in an "Identity" for its members. Its members need to feel safe. Need to feel noticed. Need to see that they too matter in the whole. If that does not happen, then a nation tends to fail.
When a nation/state neglects a part of its populace, a struggle for a separate identity ensues, and what results is either a new state or a nation. There is absolutely no business of saying that there is a sort of a "Feeling" of oneness. When you are hungry, you want food first. Next you think of development. Nobody says, "All right, I will remain hungry , and let the nation prosper". As Bharatiyar says "If one man is hungry, may the whole world stay hungry". So as long as the last man in a nation is not hungry, the nation is potentially capable of falling apart at any point of time and patriotism along with it.
In the end, the way I would define this word is perhaps : Patriotism is a notion of togetherness that is created for convenience and for common good and prosperity of the group that calls itself one.
As long as it is a positive attitude that says "All right, I will try to improve by working hard to raise myself" , rather than a negative one of "All right, I will try to improve by working hard to lower others", it would do good. The moment that rule is violated, we will see many more Lankas/Kashmirs and Israels.
After I say all this, I tend to think that a World Economy may perhaps not be a great solution in one sense, that it would again tend to break apart due to the "Identity crisis" I have mentioned earlier. Perhaps only when all men completely believe that they all came from the same mother at some point of time will this concept tend to succeed. If not, it may remain just a wishful thought.
6 comments:
Excellent..... truly amazing post..... if IIM-B doesnt take u, it's their loss (no bribes attached...)
@sri : Dei come on :)...not all that good
Anyways thanks for the remarks. Truly flattered
@kopos : True...
Excellent post!! Though we have beaten around this bush many times over, it was still a very thoughtful read!
I had a few random thoughts...
"So are we then seeing a failure of the concept of nations? We saw USSR break apart. We saw so many other nations disintegrating to smaller ones...."
In my opinion, the fact that nations are breaking up actually "strengthens" the concept of nations and does not actually manifest their failures. You mention that under "ideal circumstances" (as espoused by Auroville) is a world citizenship. So
anything further away from a world citizenship would mean that the sense of "nationhood" is stronger and the universal spirit weaker.
USSR was not one "nation" at all. Encompassing the Mongoloids and Sino-Japanese in Siberia to Arab and Turks in Central Asia to Orthodox christians in East Europe to the modern Balkans - it was a state that governed many "nations". In this regard, it may be useful to differentiate soveriegns, countries, cultures and nations.
A sovereign state is what we usually confuse for a nation. Sovereignty means "legitimately being able to govern a geographical area and territory". In the US, sovereignty is shared between the states and the federal government. Technically, there are laws in Texas which will be ridiculed in - say New Jersey. There is still the South-North social divide and the Coast-inland wealth divide. However, for economic and welfare reasons, the states have every incentive to stay together and the common American has never thought of secession ever since Civil War. As you rightly pointed out, Katrina exposed the fragility of the society in southern states like New Orleans. So, until there is a conflict of purpose en masse.. citizens are happy to be governed by a sovereign - whatever constitutes it.
The identity of a country is at the next level. For example, the UK is constituted of three countries - England, Scotland and Wales.. and a quasi-country - Northern Ireland. These countries have different parliaments, varying degrees of legislative freedom, play international sports as different teams. You will be amazed by the ignorance of cricket in Wales. Irish and Welsh are so completely removed from English. Even within such a small geographical expanse, the three and a half "countries" display diversity that is astonishing. In many ways, these are the remnants of the British colonial empire which are integrated by the allegiance to the Crown. If you really think about it, the UK has no reason to stay integrated if not for their collective well-being. In Northern Ireland, where this is in dispute, there are secessionists in operation.
Cultures are at the next abstract level. This is where we really can begin to move outside of politically demarcated boundaries and talk about a shared sense of heritage, history, past upheavals and wounds. This is also where religions and ethnicity comes into play. The much touted "Clash of Civilizations" occur at this level. So, when you have the entire Arabian peninsula against Zionist Israel or the Australians vs Aborigines, it is a conflict at the cultural level. In the contemporary world, increasingly people identify themselves lesser and lesser with the sovereigns and countries and more and more with cultures. Which is why the Palestine movement was able to survive for so long even without a single territorial base.
A nation is a narrower concept. With nation, there is a room only for one distinct group of people with very similar origins, culture, religion, practices, habits, law, language etc. For example, all American-Indian tribes name themselves "nations". Within the middle-East, the Lebanese Muslims and the Syrian Muslims are two nations. In Sri Lanka, the argument of the Tamils against the Sinhalese, is that they are two different nations (even if you can broadly classify them under a single culture).
So, patriotism can be defined at four different levels - two on the political, and two more on the social. Ultimately, politics follow society. Thus, sovereigns disintegrate along the lines of the constituent countries, cultures or nations. I believe this is what is happening today. The population today is realigning itself into fragments - where it thinks it belongs, and its interests will be the best served. So, it is not simply bigger nations breaking into smaller ones.. but a misfit concept breaking up into a more relevant concepts. To that extent, we are moving away from a "world citizenship". I do not want to make a value judgement as to whether or not it is good.. as there is much more to it than I can think at the moment.But, considering all that patriotism is definitely a very very subjective concept. It is what you believe "you belong to" at the moment.
When Kopos says "the betterment of the place he was living in/born in." - what is that place ? Is it the current boundaries of the sovereign, the country that fits into it, the cultural boundaries or the narrower nation? Defining that differently can give you different interpretations of patriotism.
Forgive the verbal diarrhoea. I thought as I wrote, and I couldnt stop. :)
And yes to sign off...
think of what happened after the Indo-Pak partition? Though we were one sovereign, one country, and arguably one culture (at least a similar culture).. one third of the population felt we were two nations.
So, an interesting question to ask is can anybody fault a Pakistani who is patriotic? And how different is he than a future Naga (assuming for argument's sake without making any judgements - that Naga separatists have their way)
Post a Comment