It has been long indeed... And after a zillion lifetimes, and a million requests - Sriram the prodigy is back. To start with, appending some lost post, before they get lost forever.
This one is a popular post called The Concept of a Nation, featured in Haftamag.
Just to keep the continuity, am adding the relevant comments which flowed in with the post... If you feel you got to say something, say it here! Say it Now!! : )
Off you go...
The Concept of a Nation:
“How will you show affection for you country publicly”? : Shouts TOI, on the eve of our Republic Day.
This day, I stand to examine my thoughts on Nationhood. How relevant, important, misrepresented or misunderstood it is.
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 alter of our bloated and imaginary egos? – Egos which are as imaginary as the lines on paper.
In fact, while examining the concept of a nation, two allied 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 considered sacrosanct, holier than the holiest grail. To question them, their origins, their purpose and if they are in fact serving their true raison d'etre is extremely sacrilegious.
We shall inspect these associated threads in the next couple of parts of the same post.
But first, let’s 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 supposedly the first proponent of the concept of objectivism.
If everyone lived up to ones 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 a 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?
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/her stake on it. Anyone who wanted to utilize that resource would have to be essentially stronger than him/her. It obviously did not matter, if they could in fact collaborate, and perhaps get more by sharing that piece of land. Driven by part insecurity, part ego, 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 all that 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.
Human beings 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. 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, we give medals.
Slowly the structure evolves, to levels where many brains are being consumed and devoted just for its betterment.
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 the nation’s icon, its first citizen beyond compare.
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 2/3rds of its GDP in ‘defense’ related expenditure.
Guess this is 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, and most often than not, this framework advocates generally accepted and universal principles of goodness. We could call The Constitution a representation of this framework.
However, how elegantly are these principles 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? How 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 further poke my point, 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 term, ‘Government’ to the above.
Government Servant.
Now, what comes to the mind?
Typically, a babu with unlimited rights? Rights to obscure your own fundamental rights! Generally, he/she is supremely powerful in his own bastion. Impregnable as they are, you would have to grease the palms of the entire hierarchy before you are even deemed fit to have an appointment. 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 ‘humor’ 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’ which he hoped and expected out of the government servants. However, what we now get is only ‘bhaav’… The concept of ‘seva’ is buried somewhere deep inside the maya of ‘meva’. Service, as an attitude, as a way of life, as a philosophy to be practiced is out of question!
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 us to think differently.
When will the reel-life ‘shift in thought process’ reflect in real-life?
Or, is it doing so, already?
===
Comments for the Concept
--
A well written article.
Boundaries only serve to do one thing- divide. These days, the concept is, boundaries give you freedom to do what you want in your area; as long as you can sustain the area, that is. Look at what Saddam did while he made those boundaries. And then, someone meaner and stronger came up and took it all away from him, only making things worse.
On another topic, we have indeed forgotten what the word "service" means. So right when you say "only "bhaav" remains while "Seva" has lost itself somewhere in this huge milling crowd where humbleness is considered as a sign of weakness.
Cheers to the author on his thoughts. Wish there were more people thinking. They say, greatness comes to you when you start thinking, along with wisdom. Keep thinking and act upon it. You'll make it big in the world.
We'll ask the ETs to take you away and bring back more like you.
Felicia | Homepage | 03.28.07 - 4:32 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kudos to the Author. Thoughts reflected in the article,are signs of a'free mind' that all of us are endowed with at subtle level.It is just because the "conditioning" that various societies have imposed on us, since ages, that too many layers are formed in our consciousness to see the right perspective behind formation of any concepts that have been formed. I do agree with the statement " 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."
By digging deep inside us and realizing our individuality first, only can we get rid of overlapping layers that has 'Conditioned' us from generations.No wonder,this Conditioning presents lot of confusions and contradictions in front of us ,be it any concept,theory or belief..Just by keeping the awareness about our true nature and by keeping the focus shifted towards honing up our individual growth,we would see ,by being in any nation theory of "Vasudaiv Kutumbkam" is actually working.
Points raised in the article create lot of ripples in the mind and provoke us to think more.For this 'Sriram' really deserves the applause.
Anjani | 03.28.07 - 8:03 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hey, was a real good post...ya really made ourselves think of something which we hadn realised all this time..like this was within us somewer but it is now being questioned good that u made the point of all coming down to rage over imaginary stupid lines on the map...and yaa sense of service right on that note as well..having said all this hope i can do something towards the positives of it although i doubt it still something to think off..anyways kidos dude nice post..
Gaurav | 03.29.07 - 12:12 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kutta, i must say.. gud work..! esply dat state and govt of da day one...kewl presentation in a simple way.. yet i must say..i disagree wid one line..."To go against what is essentially ‘right’ is downright foolish, downright evil."
well i was under da impression dat... there exists a very narrow line btw right and wrong..as the right and wrong boundaries vary wid each person..nyways...u hav xpressed ur thots very well...abt da line drawn on the face of the earth to give birth to a nation? ..indeed as i always hint to u..u r an ET!!
Neelima | 03.29.07 - 2:23 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like what you have written. World is a projection of an individual - an individual is not because of the world around. One should be brave enough to argue with what is considered to be 'correct' by the folks of the community. This is possible only if a man thinks for himself what is right and wrong by going deep within his self and ask basic questions. Sometimes there would be answers, at other times there would be none, sometimes right answers would appear wrong and wrong would appear right. Finally a balanced mindset would be reached where patiently one would wait for the truth to reveal itself, without any hurry to agree to an answer to reach a fleeting state of satisfaction where one thinks that one knows, but that is only self deception. Right and Wrong & Correct and Incorrect are marks on sand that fade away and are redrawn with the movement of waves of time and people. It is important to be kind, patient, loving and peaceful without any concern for what is right and what is wrong...
'Outside the arena of right and wrong, there is a big field where you and i and hopefully the whole world would meet to celebrate our lives. '
Anshuman Singh | 03.29.07 - 3:40 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats what we call 'A Whack on right side of the mind'.
You thought very different. Much different than what we kept thinking since last 1000s of years. Your article can spark a global debate on the way this planet life is organized. Its not just a human, but there will be many entities who are affected. Talk about animals, trees, water or the land itself. The variety created by nature itself may cause a question of 'why?'.
The sense of 'Ownership' may be questioned !! The sense of ruling may be questioned. Oops... I am leading towards a famous saying in Gajarati language:
Jar, Jamin ne Joru, traney kajva na chhoru.
Means: Gold, Land and Female; all three are mean for greed.
Is this the golden rule working since 5000BC till today?
Atul Thakker | 03.29.07 - 4:04 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wow...u started off with Ayn Rand moved to the first citizen....to bimal jalan & ending with rdb.....this is variety.....this is way of life.....this is sri...
nice articles & it is very difficult to put the thoughts in the words...bt must say very good effort...
will definitely keep coming back to you for more.
himanshu
himanshu | 03.29.07 - 4:58 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me start by putting some abstract question… what really brought the whole concept of nationalism in your mind? More importantly, had anyone ever thought like you before or not and if they have, what have they done about it and why or why not?
As I understand it, you are partly right about concept of nation is based on part ego and might.. which may be true.. my only reservation is if it is really wrong.. until someone works for it ppl would not value the assets they own… it is correct that noble thoughts of sustenance and protection would drive this demarcation initially and is finally corrupted by power and convenience. But what I think now is whether there is any other way human kind could have alternatively evolved and would that be better.
I think that it is still the animal instinct that governs our emotions and it is this emotions that lead to concrete decisions that shape the concepts of nations and any other concept. Why a group of ppl cannot take collective decision has more to do with inability to do so rather than choice. Since we ‘feel’ differently we can never arrive at the same decision which would more often than not lead to anarchy. And thus nature came out with a unique concept of hierarchy.
If we look at any other organism (except humans and viruses) over many centuries hierarchies would appear. Leaders are chosen based on power and then the others follow the leader. This saves the situation where different emotions would exercise different actions which would windfall into an uncontrollable situation.
NOW FOR THE GOLDEN QUESTION? Being educated and having more understanding are we behaving differently. I think we are. As I understand it now there is no correct line of thought. You think in a way because you have had a different line of events which affected you differently. And having different views battling each other would slow the pace of development which would give the more weak more time to adapt else they will perish without a chance. I don’t think it is wrong. And nature still has ways to correct the wrong ‘developments’ in humankind. They take shape of wars (which often happens because the demand for resources surpasses that are available), natural calamity or even disease.
And that’s the way it is. The way government thinks also change over a time. Different agencies or bodies would become powerful if there function becomes relevant for eg. as AIDS becomes widespread (read ‘relevant’) the smaller agencies have become powerful enough to command concrete steps being taken by governments.
In course of such development there are losses and like I said that’s the way it is.
I like to believe that if there is a better way to live it will find its way into our lives. The differences will be ironed out if it is so required for the survival of mankind. Till then everyone has a role to play. However I am still unable to answer who or what decided that role for you…
Rahul | 03.29.07 - 6:14 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kudos Buddy..good one...
Well well well... too many pointers... but i feel its all a matter of one thing "CONTROL" ... one wants to take control .. one accepts..other denies...one finds happiness in the controlled environment .. some revolt against it ... and some find a way out of it... whatever it is land...to..thoughts.. and what comes between is everything from man to man made things... thats what i feel... I guess its the matter of striking balance on controlling and getting controlled ...
Yuvaraj | Homepage | 03.29.07 - 8:32 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------