Excessive Nationalism and Blurring of Local Identities

Establishing Nationalism

Right after Independence, India has had gone on an overdrive to establish a single identity amongst its citizens- that of a national identity. This program has been going on for a long time before 1947 – it was used as a rallying call to unite all Indians under one banner to create one nation. It was based on an idea borrowed from the alien invaders who saw this big sub-continent as one unit. And it worked.

Never before in history did an Indian, living in Lakshwadeep or Nagaland, think that he was an Indian. This program became successful to a great extent in uniting various cultures, regions, languages, tribes, clans, kingdoms, etc, to create an Indian nation.

At the same time, this attempt suffered a brief setback when a huge chunk of Muslims of this sub-continent wanted a Pakistan under a different rallying call to establish another identity- that of religion. Mahatma Gandhi could never recover from his partially-failed experiment to unify people of this land under one banner.

However, the rest of us who inherited India were quite happy with the results and continued to push and promote one identity- that of an Indian, not knowing we were creating a new ideology called nationalism which would have its own set of drawbacks.

Insecurities of a new nation

The leaders of post-Independent India were overzealous in their attempts to impose this new identity onto the Indians. They feared India might breakup as speculated by many critics of those times. This feeling that India might break anytime was looming large on the minds of all our founding fathers. Actually it was almost a miracle that we created only two nations in this sub-continent. There was a good chance there could have been many more. No one actually thought we could pull it off, that all princes would give up their kingdoms, that British would actually encourage those kingdoms to abdicate to join either India or Pakistan, that Tamils and Punjabis, Marathas and Bengalis, Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus, would actually sit together to create a single destiny for themselves under one banner.

In the beginning, right after Independence, it was quite important to all these leaders that they promote national identity- one identity above all others. Their attempts created a brand of nationalism that was a mix of ideas borrowed from the West and indigenized elements. Over a period of time, it created a brand of nationalists who considered it a shame to call oneself a Bengali, a Tamil, a Telugu or a Punjabi. It was paramount that everyone called himself an Indian. This notion was instilled into Indians using every mechanism possible.

In the process, we created some symbols- a flag, an anthem, a map, etc, and we created movies, songs, text books, etc, to indoctrinate them. These symbols were heavily used to rally its people under a banner of nationalism. Also important was binding everyone under a common grief- which is so essential to create national identities. We got our share too- when India was invaded by neighboring countries, when its national leaders were assassinated, when we suffered due to natural tragedies, etc. Some other attempts to unify us, such as imposing a national language, failed when certain regional units did not accept imposition of a different language over their own.

On the whole this drive to inculcate nationalism was a huge success. When Rajiv Gandhi was killed in Tamil Nadu, the whole of Tamil Nadu wept as if he was their own man even though the killers were Tamils (from a foreign nation). After his death it was clear that our national identities ran higher compared to some regional ones. Even today many Indians sympathize with many Kashmiris as if they are their own kind (though these sympathies are confined to Hindus alone). Labeling the Muslim Kashmiris as ‘national enemies’ or ‘lovers of a foreign nation’ is enough for most Indians to abandon similar sympathies towards them.

Excessive Nationalism

While India was going on this overdrive to promote nationalism in India to keep it united, Europe was reeling itself out of two World Wars that had resulted due to excessive nationalism. That excessive nationalism which was established in the preceding years in Europe was easily hijacked by certain fascist regimes to rally its people against enemies within and outside national boundaries. They eventually threw the whole world into bloody wars.

Learning their lessons, after WWII, most of Europe rolled back its nationalism and went on a campaign to moderate it. Soon, a person waving a national flag was seen as immature warmonger. It went onto consolidate itself under different nationalities respecting one another without infringing upon others' identities.

India hasn’t witnessed the consequences of such excessive nationalism as yet.

Though there are enough signs to indicate that certain fascist forces are already operating and hijacking it to promote their vested interests, we are too blinded by our newly-found national fervor to see it. Our ignorance of world histories is not helping us either. The incessant doses of nationalism have already reached its peak and it is now spilling over into many spheres of Indian life. We are already brimming with excessive pride over our nation and its achievements. And where there are no achievements, we are ready to invent them (just like what Europe did in the late 19^th and early 20^th century).

Blurring local identities

There is a negative side effect to all this which we cannot ignore. In an overzealous attempt to establish a single identity- that of nation, we have consistently led campaigns to blur other identities which are as important to the Indian people and to the very existence of India in the long run.

Nowadays, it is preferable and politically correct to call oneself an Indian but not a Telugu or Bengali. In the movie, Chak De, the coach of the Indian women hockey team exhorts every player to call herself an Indian, as a response, when those players call out their state name. The audience was happy to see him reprimand them. I found that quite ridiculous.

I was told that in a TV show called Voice of India, one contestant protested when each person was referred to the state or region he belonged to. Instead, he wanted everyone to be called an Indian. The audience applauded him and the practice of naming one’s state was discontinued (for a while). I find such attempts foolish and funny.

If it is an ‘Indian’ Hockey team, isn’t it redundant to say one is Indian? If it is voice of ‘India’, isn’t it redundant to say one is Indian? I see this whole charade of calling oneself Indian on such forums nonsensical. If it is a Miss USA contest in USA, it doesn’t make sense for each participant to say she is an American. In its current practice, every contestant clearly tells which state she belongs to. When they indicate their state, they are not accused of being less patriotic.

Miss India contest in India is a different beast altogether. Only in India, do we see only one agency selecting all the candidates to pit them one against the other to select a Miss India. In this ‘Indian’ contest, you may want to see Miss Meghalaya or Miss Orissa but you won’t find any of them. All the candidates are mostly from four or five metros of India.

In our overzealous attempt to promote nationalism, we curb our regional identities, thus reducing the Miss India pageant into a joke, selecting contestants from a small section of population and that too by one agency. In my opinion, it should be called 'Miss Femina' (or something like that) and they should just drop the tag ‘India’.

What is wrong in saying where a person is from, when living in India? When I am traveling in a train in India and I meet another Indian, do I say, ‘I am Sujai, I am from India’, or does it make sense to say, ‘I am Sujai, I am from Warangal’?

In Information Theory we learn that if you transmit a symbol which the other person already knows then the information content is zero. Its better you don’t transmit it. If you tell the other person some information that he already knows, what good is it? If you have to rate Indians on their idiocy, I believe this should rank first.

Nationalism as ideology

In an attempt to promote nationalism India has been trying to blur our local identities, and that is not going well. There are some arrogant people who think their local identity is in fact an Indian identity and therefore they try to impose their local identity onto others using the national flag. In a country where people are brimming with excessive nationalistic pride, any such action under the national flag becomes sacrosanct. All those opposing it are treated as less patriotic, and hence less Indian.

For example, the people of the North, who speak Hindi, think they are more Indian than the people of the South just because they speak Hindi which they think is the national language. All Indians should be told that there is NO such a thing called NATIONAL LANGAUGE in India. Any talk of Rashtriya Basha is a bullshit concept. It was turned down long ago in 1960s itself and the Indian constitution has no mention of that word. Instead we have two official languages for each state and the national capital. An Indian speaking his local language is as Indian as an Indian speaking Hindi.

However, there is arrogance amongst certain Hindi speakers to assume that everyone should be speaking Hindi. Such a false notion arises because of our attempts to blur our regional identities while trying to impose national identities.

In another example, in an ongoing debate on this blog at 'separate Telangana', the detractors always bring in the argument of 'breakup of the nation' to discredit the local movement. Such detractors who equate 'creation of a new state within the legal and constitutional rights of India' with an 'attempt to disunite India' are trying to portray such separation-seekers as traitors.

It has become a practice in all spheres of public debate to take upon oneself a higher moral authority being defenders of national symbols while portraying the opponents as traitors.

In our overzealous attempts to establish nationalism as the highest virtue, we have created a new ideology. And that ideology has now grown strong and has come back to haunt us. In this game of proving oneself better than the other, the highest flag bearer gets the right to impose himself onto others even if he is pursuing his vested interests. The question of patriotism is answered by how smartly you cover your vested interest in the garb of ‘for the sake of nation’ slogans.

Other negatives of excessive nationalism

Excessive nationalism when not really in use sometimes vents itself as other isms- such as regionalism or communalism. As a corollary, certain groups starting out with parochial and radical regionalisms and communalisms get legitimacies when they portray themselves as nationalists. For example, Shiv sainiks who named themselves after Shivaji (who is considered a patriot under a national banner), first targeted Tamils in Mumbai, displaying their excessive regionalism, and later transformed themselves into a group targeting Muslims, displaying their excessive communalism. They get their legitimacies from many educated Hindus when they champion nationalism. Many Hindus laud Bal Thackeray and his Shiv sainiks when he takes a belligerent stand against Pakistan during a cricket season. Shiv sainiks get their legitimacy as true patriots and they use this slogan to cover up many of their other isms.

Certain groups move between these various isms very easily. The defenders of Kannada in Bangalore target Tamils on Cauvery issues, and then vent it out on non-Kannadigas during other incidents showing excessive regionalism, but also portray themselves as the defenders of the nation when protesting against Narayana Murthy over his comments on National Anthem. BJP and its affiliations use this card on a regular basis. They are defenders of national prestige and pride on the national arena while targeting Muslims and Christians in their local constituencies.

India should tolerate and respect local identities.

India’s strength lies not in its excessive nationalism, but in its ability to tolerate and respect local identities. And India is losing that strength at a rapid pace. India should now tone down its pursuit of indoctrinating excessive nationalism, and should take a step back, and moderate its campaign.

At the same time, India should encourage its people to be proud of their local identities, allowing them to display it and flaunt it without having to encroach upon other identities. 'Tolerate and Respect' is the need of the hour.

A national identity encroaching upon a local identity is as bad as one local identity encroaching upon the other local identity. We have to learn to live with our identities, be proud of them, and be able to respect other identities of other people. In a previous article on this topic (India: North and South Debate) I argued that the strength of India lies in celebration of its diversity. That means, in addition to being Indian, we have many other identities, which are equally important to all of us.

India derives its strength from allowing such identities to flourish. Long term existence of India is dependent on how well India respects its diversity. These attempts to curb local identities while promoting excessive nationalism runs counter to vision of India’s long term existence. While it may satisfy near term goals of keeping it united, it’s not based in strength of its people, but out of fear of its people.

Only by allowing its people to celebrate their own identities, India will continue to live as one nation. Only then will each Indian feel free to be a part of this nation.

Telangana V: Political angle

This follows Telangana – A New State, Telangana II, Telangana III, Telangana IV.

Why did we not get Telangana along with Chattisgarh, Uttarkhand and Jharkhand?

When BJP was in power, they had recommended creation of some new states. In fact, it was part of their manifesto. When they came to power, they set out put their manifesto into actions. They even wrote about nuclear armament in their manifesto and later realized it. There were few issues on their manifesto which they could not deliver on, like Telangana issue, etc, due to political reasons. [There were many other issues which were left out, thanks to coalition governments – like saffronization our history books, etc.]

When BJP was in power at center their opposition parties were holding power in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Bihar. Hence, it just went ahead to create new states out of those states without any compunctions or doubts. There was also an incentive for doing that. Since those states were governed by opposition parties, breaking them would create new units who may vote for BJP as a token of thanks. However, when it came to Telangana, which was actually one of the top priorities in any reorganization of states one could conceive of, the state of Andhra Pradesh was being governed by TDP (Telugu Desam Party), a critical ally of BJP. And TDP under Naidu didn’t want to give up Telangana. Therefore, out of political compulsions, BJP refrained from granting us Telangana. The same argument is valid in case of Vidarbha, since Maharashtra was under Shiv Sena, another ally of BJP, who didn’t want to grant Vidrarbha statehood.

Move to the next elections. We have Congress Party at the center and also in the state. Though TRS colluded with Congress Party on the promise that Congress would grant a separate state, it did not since the state headed by Rajasekhara Reddy who is opposed to creation of Telangana. Hence the status quo!

So, when will we get our Telangana?

We may get our Telangana whenever the following scenarios occur:

1. If Congress (with UPA) comes to power and the state posits an opposition party. Separation happens after elections.

2. If BJP (with NDA) comes to power and the state posits an opposition party. Separation happens after elections.

3. We may get Telangana before the elections if Congress at the center, which got infamous in Telangana region for going back on their promise to grant Telangana, feels they may lose out in the state because of this backlash. In such a case they may quickly grant a new state right before the next election whereby they may sweep the polls in the new state. But this scenario is not that simple. If they are confident they can get many seats outside of Telangana, in the rest of AP, they may continue to delay the separation to keep the regional Congress Party happy.

We may not get Telangana even after the polls if Congress comes to power in center and as well in the State. If BJP gets to power in the center, there is a slim chance that BJP or its allies will sweep polls within the state (since BJP is unlikely to ally with TDP -but who knows?) and then there is a better chance for Telangana.

Telangana IV

This follows from the previous three articles, Telangana – A New State, Telangana II, Telangana III.

Why should Hyderabad be given to Telangana?

You would think that people would not even ask this question. You would think that people have some common sense. But then you are reminded – that in India the common sense is quite uncommon. Here, one guy writes:

U want hyderabad because it is developed… If you guys have guts I challenge u guys take telangana without hyderabad.

…khammam, adilabad, nizamabad etc etc then take them all; leave hyderabad. Telanagana was part of hyderabd but Hyderabad is not a part of telangana.

...I accept telangana movement was since last 50 yrs but everytime, they ask for hyderabad. why u ask for it?

And you know why 'T' state debate is still dragging because u want a very very well developed part into ur state. You leave hyderabad then see. I can confidently say u will get 'T' state in 3 yrs.

During our Independence time, did we even discuss if New Delhi will be part of Pakistan or with India? Was it not a logical conclusion that since it lies inside the borders of India, it should go to India? May be Pakistan should have argued that since they contributed to making of New Delhi, they should get New Delhi or that nobody should get it. Look at this map of Andhra Pradesh, with darkened Telangana region with Hyderabad deep inside its interiors. What stupid fool suggests that Hyderabad cannot be part of Telangana? When Nizam of Hyderabad , in his foolishness wanted to become a part of Pakistan during the time of Independence, didn't we argue that a land inside our interiors could not join Pakistan? How come we display this foolishness now?

Do land-locked states fail economically?

One guy puts his opposition to Telangana because it will be a land-locked state. He writes:

Land-locked ecomonies represents a significant economic handicap and a barrier to growth. Most of the worlds poorest countries are landlocked.

What this guy doesn’t know is that some of the affluent nations are also landlocked. Switzerland and Luxembourg are affluent and landlocked while some of the world’s poorest countries are NOT land-locked. Take Bangladesh, for example. It has two major rivers flowing in and is sitting on a sea and still it is quite poor.

Of the 50 poorest countries in the world, only 16 countries are land-locked. The rest- the 34 countries are poor though they are not land-locked. Actually it looks like you are poor based on where you are- if you are an island or in Africa, the chances that you are poor are quite high.

The countries which rank in the 50 poorest but are NOT land-locked include, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, Maldives, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Samoa, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, East Timor, Togo, Tuvalu, Tanzania, Vanuatu, and Yemen.

Even if it made sense that being land-locked provides a handicap, should Switzerland give up its nationhood to join Italy or France?

And for a formation of a state within a nation does it really matter if it is landlocked? Can't one go to a port through another state since they are all part of the same nation? Is Punjab a less prosperous state because it is land-locked?

Do new states take long time to form?

One guy writes:

…separate state takes a long time to form in today's government. It was easier before, now it isn't as easy.

No examples given. On the other hand, we have seen that Chattisgarh, Uttarkhand and Jharkhand came into existence overnight. Was it difficult to form a new state?

Will the new state has to grapple new problems like crime?

The same guy writes:

…The state will be too busy trying to form new rules, so crime, and other factors will incorporate in it. Not to mention Hyderabad is a hot spot for terrorists, so this new state will only trigger more terroristic actions.

Idiocy level in this statement is too much. Can’t answer it now.

Map Source: http://www.cultureholidays.com/states/images/andhra-map.jpg

Update: The subsequent part of this blog is at Telangana V.

Telangana III

Here I address some more issues. This follows Telangana – A New State, Telangana II.

No Animosity towards Andhra People

Frankly, I don’t hold any animosity towards anyone regarding this issue. Not the government, not the country, not the Andhra people, not the Telangana people, not the Rayalaseema, nor the incompetent politicians.

Many people quickly conclude that this fight for a separate Telangana is against Andhra people. It is not. I have many Andhra people as very good friends. They will continue to be friends the way so many Kashmiris, Bengalis and Tamils continue to be my friends. Just because they are good friends does not mean we have to belong to the same state.

Many States in India have been formed without creating animosity towards the parent state. Chattisgarh came out without creating any overt animosity towards people of Madhya Pradesh. The same was true with Jharkhand and Uttarkhand. Haryana came out of Punjab in 1966 without major conflict.

Sometimes, it makes sense just to separate as a new state before the pent up frustrations of separation-seekers give vent to anger against others whom they believe are obstructing that separation. Here, if we prolong this new state formation, there is a danger that Telangana people may turn their ire towards the nearest and easily available targets - which is quite undesirable. Many colonial empires delayed the eventuality of independence of their colonies only to be booted out unceremoniously.

Fight for Telangana is NOT new

The movement for Telangana is not new. It has always existed since the time of formation of Andhra Pradesh itself after Indian Independence. When the new state of Andhra Pradesh was formed out of Madras Presidency along linguistic lines, a big chunk of Telangana from erstwhile Nizam state of Hyderabad was added to it against the wishes of many Telangana people who protested in Hyderabad. Later on, the popular 1969 agitation turned into a debacle when its own leaders betrayed the cause. Now, TRS (Telangana Rashtra Samiti) is championing this cause for its own vested interests. Just because its leaders seem to have their own vested interests, one cannot shoo away or dismiss the real concerns of people of Telangana who have aspired a separate state since the time of Indian Independence.

No other state has protested and agitated as much as Telangana did in the recent times. Yet, it remains part of Andhra Pradesh against its wishes. The agitation of 1969 was led by many student bodies of Telangana joined by the common people seeking a separate Telangana. This agitation spawned many leaders from Telangana who have gone ahead to become the Chief Ministers later on. These leaders have betrayed their own people when they called off the agitation in return for small sops for people of Telangana as compensation. These sops were soon struck down by the courts of India. Therefore, this agitation of 1969 became a worthless exercise disillusioning many of its agitators. The status has not changed much for people of Telangana. Their demands were never addressed.

Should we decide on formation of new states based on quality of its leaders?

There is a tendency to discredit a separate Telangana movement by besmirching those who are more vocal about it. Now, a leader in the form of KCR (K Chandrasekhar Rao) has rallied himself and his party TRS, behind one slogan- ‘Separate Telangana’. Many of these leaders have bad reputation and have also been convicted for various frauds. Some people quickly jump to discredit the movement of Telangana by portraying it in the light of leaders of TRS. That is a big mistake. This kind of reasoning was used as a common excuse by colonial powers for NOT granting independence to their colonies. They cited the wrongs in the local leaders to explain why they were better off ruling the colonies compared to the local leaders.

Winston Churchill could not make himself grant independence to India because he could not come to believe that Indian leaders were capable of ruling themselves. Speaking of Indian leaders, he said, "to abandon India to the rule of the Brahmins would be an act of cruel and wicked negligence". According to him, "India will fall back quite rapidly through the centuries into the barbarism and privations of the Middle Ages".

In his speech to the Parliament, he said, “…To transfer that responsibility to this highly artificial and restricted oligarchy of Indian politicians would be a retrograde act. It would be a shameful act. It would be an act of cowardice, desertion and dishonour. It would bring grave material evils, both upon India and Great Britain…”

Look at some of the quotes of the detractors here from the comments on my blog:

…the TRS party, the passport brokers and human traffickers talk about Andhra cheaters. It is very scary what would happen if these guys get control of this region.

TRS has dubious credentials. If those fighting for telangana are truly disinterested, then can someone tell me what made them keep quiet for so long?

And I again repeat, those who propound for seperate state have absolutely no vision for development.

Telengana will just be KCR dominion as he could not rise through TDP ranks as much as he wanted….

Even if telangana intellectual support "Telangana state formation" they won't rule this state because KCR and other political parties will not allow them to rule it.

The detractors of separate Telangana have launched a campaign to discredit the leaders of TRS to sully the movement itself. We all have to understand one thing here - that TRS is NOT Telangana. Many Congress leaders in Telangana support a new state. Many BJP leaders have always supported a new state. I will not be surprised if some other political outfit other than TRS, such as Congress, BJP, or even Telugu Desam comes to power in the new state after its formation. Did we ever check the credentials of future leaders of Uttaranchal, Haryana, Chattisgarh before their formation? Would we have stopped giving them a new state because of their corrupt leaders? Is that a good reason not to grant statehood?

Did Andhras loot Telangana?

I do not believe that anyone has looted Telangana. But we do believe that our resources and opportunities were denied to us. Jharkhand, which has many natural resources, was a supplier of many minerals to the factories of Bihar. Over a period of time, the difference in these two parts was so much, it warranted a separate state so that people of Jharkhand could benefit from the natural resources of their own land. I believe that the administration (that included all political parties) was not caring enough to ensure all sections got their due share. That I believe is the main reason for this ongoing struggle.

If tomorrow whole of North-East states agitates to separate from India, we have to blame ourselves. We continue to neglect those states grossly and blatantly. Not a single industry has come up, not a major project has taken place. We have to bear the consequences of our own policies. Such neglect cannot be done away with some artificial sops later on.

Conclusion

I think it is a case of pragmatism to create a new Telangana. Those who dismiss every idea of separation in India as politically motivated move have not studied history. Those who dismiss the idea of separation as setting trend for many more separations, even that of the country itself, are immature. Those who dismiss the idea of separation as nothing more than a fanciful whim of certain bored people are downright ignorant.

Telangana makes a stronger case than any other new state that was formed recently in India. All objections are flimsy and do not hold ground. Those who are opposing it are making fools of themselves the same way some many detractors who thought an Independent India was a joke were later proved completely wrong.

Update: The later parts of this blog are at Telangana IV.

Guide to Indian Idiocy I

I have come up with this article thanks to Siddhartha Shome. The discussion I had with him recently in California, over a lunch, has triggered few observations that I would like to codify here.

Siddhartha has raised an extremely important and interesting observation. According to him (not in his words), Indians have a peculiar way of looking at pursuit of knowledge. For most Indians, knowledge is directly proportional to one’s age or one’s qualifications. Therefore, it is a given fact for most Indians that a Professor knows more than the student, an older man knows more than the younger man, a boss knows more than the subordinate and so on. There are no arguments about it or doubts about it. This is a cardinal rule applicable to all domains of knowledge.

From this discussion, I come to the first law of Indian Idiocy.

1. Knowledge depletes with each generation.

One can extrapolate the above observation to say that Indians also believe that our older generations knew much more than what we know. For Indians, knowledge keeps depleting with each generation, not increasing as is conventional wisdom in the West. Indians believe that our ancestors, during Vedic times, knew almost everything. They knew how to solve Quantum Physics, knew how to build airplanes, knew how to build an atom bomb. In fact, their knowledge was infinite. As generations went by, our knowledge kept reducing.

In a local sense, a professor will always know more than the student – forever. A parent will know more than the kid – forever. And so on. So each subsequent generation knows lesser compared the older one.

Taking the cue, I wanted to explore few other observations and codify into laws. Here’s the second law of Indian Idiocy.

2. Wisdom is Knowledge.

For most Indians, Wisdom is nothing but Knowledge itself. And knowledge is directly correlated with one’s education. And education is directly correlated with one’s degrees. For most elite and urban Indians, there is no difference between knowledge and wisdom. They are synonymous. Hence, a PhD is supposedly wiser than a Masters Degree holder is wiser than a Bachelor’s Degree holder and so on. At the bottom are the rural (and therefore 'illiterate'). Invariably, all those who went to IITs, IIMs, AIIMS, etc, are all wise for the rest of their lives.

One educated NRI (non-resident Indian) I recently met in US was of the opinion that giving voting rights to Indian illiterate and rural people was one of the worst mistakes India did after getting its Independence. According to him, Indian rural people should not be the decision makers. He opined that Indian urban people (and therefore 'literate') are more qualified in selecting the Indian leaders. He even proposed a model where only literate Indians should be allowed to contest elections, and a literate voter should get more votes- a bachelor’s degree should be given two votes, while a PhD should be given four votes, and so on.

Though I found his idea utterly ridiculous, I described it here for a reason. That’s because the above sentiment is shared by many Indian elite, urban and literate in different shades, may be not so grossly, but may be little subtly. Look at the present campaign by TOI called Lead India. It is nothing but a reflection of this sentiment held by most urban people. All those who got selected are urban, well-educated and comprise mostly upper caste, and Hindu. When describing them, TOI uses many words and sentences to talk about their qualifications, which college they went to, which MNC they worked for, etc. According to me, most of them have completely vacuous opinions on socialism, on caste-issues, on secularism, right to vote, coalition governments, etc. In my opinion they are inane and downright dumb. However they seem to reflect the sentiments of these urban Indians very well that Wisdom = Knowledge = Education = College Degrees.

Here’s the third law of Indian Idiocy.

3. Experience is Age.

Older a person, it is naturally assumed, the more experienced he is. Even if that person has not traveled anywhere outside his city, Even if that person has not met people of different cultures, even if that person has not tasted different cuisines of different lands. Just because he is old, he is considered more experienced.

A friend of mine, to counter this notion, said, ‘it is not experience, it is the capacity to experience that should matter’. Two people going through similar situations can come out quite differently just because one had more 'capacity to experience' than the other.

For most Indians, a person sitting under a tree all his life meditating is vastly experienced and wiser than a person who has sailed oceans and seas. No wonder, we have codified this law into our religion itself- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, before he left for England to study, had to combat this all-pervasive belief that he is going to lose his caste if he sailed the seas. For most part of our history, our opinion on experiences was quite skewed. For Indians, Experience = Age.

A note on methods of learning - as I see it:

A person can learn through three different ways

1. Through books and other sources of education.

2. Through experiences of others- which includes discourse.

3. Through one’s own experiences.

Knowledge is a combination of all the above three. We cannot say which one is better than the other. It is usually sum of all the above three in various proportions.

Telangana II

Here, I deal with some of the comments from my previous blog - Telangana - A New State.

I just don’t understand why so many people are opposed to a separate Telangana. We didn’t see the same kind of opposition when Jharkhand, Chattisgarh and Uttarkhand were created.

It is quite clear that there are many supporters for separate Telangana in Telangana. TRS, a political party, that came in to cash in on this sentiment with a single slogan of getting a separate Telangana has swept the polls in Telangana. This clearly indicates that people of Telangana overwhelmingly support a separate Telangana.

So, who are these voices who are opposed to it? And why are they opposed to formation of Telangana? Here I look at some of the excuses given by some of the detractors.

1. Andhra people will take away all their investments from Telangana.

Some time ago, the real estate prices crashed in Hyderabad when it became imminent that Telangana would be formed. Lot of people speculated that many Andhra people will move out of Hyderabad. Now, that the state has not formed yet and since so many new projects keep coming into Hyderabad, the prices have picked up again.

There are lots of people who believe that 'Andhra people moving out of Hyderabad' will be bad for Hyderabad. Therefore, they believe that Telangana should not be formed. This reasoning is quite ridiculous. First, no decision on formation of a new state should be based on fears that certain section of people will move out. Second, there are many examples from history which suggest that Andhra people could continue living in Hyderabad even after separation of Telangana. There are many Tamils still living in Mumbai even after Shiv Sainiks took on an agenda to get rid of them. When many riots broke out in Bangalore in a drive to kick out Tamils, the Tamils stood ground and continue living there. Many similar incidents took place in India. That has not changed the demographics much. Such incidents were sporadic and confined to small time frames only to further an agenda. It is unlikely that Andhra people will move out of Hyderabad just because the city goes to Telangana.

There is a ridiculous speculation that the new state would not be friendly to new investments. One guy writes:

…If we have a separate state, then projects like Fab city, Hyderabad Airport, Sky bus, Hyderabad Metro, ORR, and numerous projects will halt and eventually disappear from the state only for the reason that government will not support it after the new state.

The newly formed states in India are known for their aggressive policies to attract more investments and start new projects. Take Uttarkhand for example. They have already invited many MNCs to setup factories in their state giving them sops and tax benefits. Their economy is on an unprecedented growth.

2. Muslims will dominate if Telangana becomes a State.

This issue is never discussed in public forums but is given as an excuse by many detractors in private discussions. If you talk to these detractors, it’s hard to miss the Muslim angle in their story. There is a sense of fear amongst Hindus that in the new Telangana state Muslims will wield more power – and they don’t want that

Similar argument was used long ago when Bengal was partitioned by British. Many Hindus opposed it because they believed that new East Bengal would be completely dominated by Muslims. While that reason is quite abominable and has bigotry as its core ideal, it was still a valid reason in the sense that the new state had a Muslim-majority population.

For a minute let's consider and accept this abominable excuse as an acceptable reason and apply it in case of separate Telangana. The percentage of Muslims to Hindus in Telangana marginally improves even in a separate state of Telangana without any bearing whatsoever to affect the power equations. The Muslims will continue to be a minority as ever. Hindus will continue to dominate in the whole of Telangana as they have always done. They will continue to vote the same kind of people to power from each of their constituency as they have done all these years.

I could imagine a change in power equations if there was reconstitution of the constituencies to benefit certain communities. But if we were to stick to the same constituencies in the new state, they would continue to yield the same results whether they are part of Telangana or Andhra Pradesh or Madras Presidency.

[Of all these excuses, I hate this the most. First, this reason is quite revolting to be used as an excuse. Second, it is not even valid.]

The Muslim angle continues. For many people, the fact that Telangana was under Nizam is a disgrace. The fact that Telangana people did not revolt against Nizam only shows their good-for-nothing capability establishing their inferiority.

One guy writes [emphasis mine]:

I would have loved to see so called "Telangana Tigers" Freeing themselves from Nizam Rule without the intervention of Indian Army. What were these telangana people doing when Nizam was ruling them. Who was nizam? and where did nizam come from? Telangana people allowed nizam who was not even a part of this country to rule them and now they are fighting for seperate state. You should never be given a seperate state for you preferred the slavery of Nizams and you are talking about cultural aspects.

Look at the tone of above commenter in describing the people of Telangana. We do not deserve a separate state because we endured Nizam?

3. Hyderabad will become a Union Territory; away from both Andhra and Telangana.

There was a rumor floating around suggesting that Hyderabad will be made a Union Territory and hence both Telangana and Andhra people will lose the city, making the separation a zero-sum game for everyone. This was indeed a good rumor benefiting the detractors who started to tell everyone to oppose separation. The importance of Hyderabad cannot be missed in this opposition to Telangana formation. In fact, it could be the foremost reason why rest of Andhra Pradesh does not want to grant Telangana people a separate statehood. In the case of Chattisgarh, Jharkhand or Uttarkhand, important cities were not lost to these newly created states - and that's why we saw little resistance. However, in case of Telangana, Hyderabad plays a vital role. The newly formed state is about to bag the crown jewel, and hence we see a bitter opposition to stop that separation.

One guy writes:

Hyderabad is on developement road if you break the state its absolutely problem for both of us.

They are hell bent on not giving up Telangana. You start to wonder why there is such great opposition. Is there an ulterior motive? Even Winston Churchill never wanted to part with India. He wanted India to be there as a crown jewel feeding his nation with raw material. Here, Hyderabad is access to capital, opportunity and investment, and they don’t want to let go.

And some people come with sillier excuses such as:

4. Andhra people are hardworking, enterprising and well-educated.

One Telangana guy writes [emphasis mine]:

We are best at what we do if we put our mind to it and let's for god's sake not separate from our telugu brethern by hiding our laggard nature.

To oppose the separation citing such silly reasons is actually quite dangerous. Should we ally with the efficient German people and merge with them just because they are hard-working, enterprising and well-educated?

Many Telangana people believe that Andhra people are better than them because 'Andhra people are hardworking, enterprising and well-educated'. They think that people of Telangana are lazy, job-shirkers and usually less hardworking. This they believe was the main reason why Andhra people seem to do so well. And they see no reason why Telangana should be rewarded (or punished) with a new state just because one is lazy.

One guy writes:

Let us think telangana is formed and according to your dreams you now have huge req. in state for jobs.. Are you going to recruit educted guys of telangana or non-educated guys ??

If your answer is "educated" guys then that what happened when AP state was formed.Andhra guys who are educated got the job.

This is the exact mindset we are trying to counter here. In addition to mere qualifications endowed by educational degrees, we want local people to prosper by controlling the competition from people of well-to-do regions. That’s why we create different administrative regions and states in the first place.

For many reasons separation really helps. By restricting certain jobs in a State to its own people, thereby making people from other states ineligible, we pave the way for benefiting people of that state, providing them with more opportunities. If we did not have such constituents (as states) and if whole of India was one single state where anyone from any place could get any government post anywhere, we can easily imagine a situation wherein certain well-to-do region people getting all employment opportunities sidelining people from backward regions forever (like Orissa) thus perpetuating and widening that gap forever. The people of such backward regions will never get jobs in their own lands and therefore will not prosper. To avoid such disparities existing between two kinds of people, we have different constituent units. Therefore, separation comes as an important tool and it definitely helps to put certain homogenous groups- social, economic, cultural, linguistic, religious, whatever be the basis for an identity or common grief, into units called states so that they can provide opportunities indigenously.

Did not Telugu people fight for a separate state citing the same reasons to form Andhra Pradesh out of Madras Presidency?

If for certain reason we see two lopsided units in the same state, and for a prolonged period certain people are getting sidelined consistently, one has to wake up and take a second look to see if that state needs to be divided. And that time has come for people of Telangana.

5. Andhra Telugu is superior – everyone should become like them.

There are many Telangana people who are very ashamed to speak Telangana. They see it as lowly language something more suitable for a coolie, a worker or a sweeper. To be sophisticated and chic and to reach higher echelons of society, one has to speak Andhra Telugu.

This feeling goes around a lot, mostly in Telangana. And there is a reason for that. Take a government organization like BHEL, ECIL, or any university in Telangana. You will find most high positions occupied by people from Andhra, while people of Telangana comprise low positions. Therefore, there is a tendency to attach Andhra people’s accent and dialect with superiority since it goes with those high positions. Even the Telugu Movies perpetuate the same image- the goon, the villain and the comedian speak Telangana while invariably all protagonists (the 'Hero' and 'Heroine'), even if the setting is in Telangana region, speak Andhra Telugu. This notion is palpable in all those environments where Telangana people and Andhra people rub shoulders- there is a continuous image being beamed which suggest that Telangana is inferior. So some of these middle class Telangana people who want to get rid of this ignominy inculcate a sense of shame into their kids for being Telangana, and they do their best to get rid of Telangana tag by teaching their kids to speak Andhra Telugu. You will see some middle class Telangana people who aspire to grow ranks in society speaking Andhra Telugu.

In all social circles, to speak Telangana is considered lowly and to speak Andhra Telugu is considered sophisticated. This feeling is not only prevalent amongst Andhra people, but is also carried out by many Telangana people who look down upon their dialect as inferior.

One Telangana guy writes about Andhras:

but take inspiration from them in is it that is good about them(they speak telugu which is less arabic, turkish influenced) and at the same time preserve and nourish our own dialect. Jai Telugu!

On the issue of Andhras ridiculing Telangana dialect, one guy writes [emphasis mine]:

You will be ridiculed when you deserve to be ridiculed. Nobody will praise you when you are in a position to be ridiculed. Did'nt the Britishers and Mughals ridicule the entire nation and why did they ridicule because you yourselves put yourself in a situation to be ridiculed.

6. We will lose our identity as Telugu people

Another common refrain is that we will lose our identity as Telugu people. They see the State as one single family and breaking it is like breaking asunder a nice little family- which, according to them, is a bad thing to do – just watch any Telugu movie – they all portray a son moving out of the home as a very bad thing to do. One guy writes:

This is my land n I dont like leaders breaking my ANDHRA PRADESH for there own cause . Even now we r recognosied as MADRASI by others,by breaking the state we will not have recognition also.

What this guy doesn’t realize is that the reason why we formed Andhra Pradesh out of Madras Presidency is also why Telangana people want a separate state. The rationale that was applied back then is somehow not applied now. There is a gimmick to rally people to unify under one language to oppose this separation.

One guy writes [translation mine]:

Telugu mundhu [Telugu first]. Atharavathe edhaina [Everything else is secondary]. Person who started this blog should know that Telugus have come under one banner after thousands of years. Let's not waste this opportunity by separating ourselves into distinct identities by exaggerating them.

He believes that TELUGU as a language comes above everything else and that reason is enough to keep this a single state. Don’t we have many states speaking Hindi? Should they all be under one banner and therefore under one state? Don’t we have many states speaking Bengali, should we bring back Bangladesh into West Bengal to keep them under one banner? The number of people who speak Telugu is more than 70 million. There are many countries which are one-tenth of that size in Europe maintaining their identity. There are many countries which speak English as their main language – they continue to maintain their identities in spite of different national flags.

Conclusion:

I notice a sense of exasperation from these detractors. They tell us not to break the region as if it is a crime. They equate separation of state to creation of a new nation – and this analogy is quite ridiculous. We will continue to evolve as a nation and that would mean we will have new reorganizations of all kinds to suit the changing aspirations of its people. There are many detractors in this country who oppose all kinds of change. They are just opposed to any change of any kind. One reason is fear of change and fear of unknown. The other reason is arrogance that the present status is really the best. They just cannot comprehend why certain people would demand a separate identity or a state.

Then there are vested interests who do not want to part with Hyderabad to Telangana people and hence they posit all kinds of arguments which do not stand ground. They cite many frivolous and some ridiculous reasons to oppose this separation. They say- lets stay united, as if it is a family. They say- Telangana will suffer more, as if it got a chance to improve in the first place. They resort to ridiculing Telangana people while continuing to object a separate state.

Some Telangana people who reached higher social circles aping Andhra people harbor very low opinion of their own people and hence oppose the creation of a new state- just the way so many princes, rajahs and babus of India who were aping British opposed Independence of India because they just could not believe an Indian was qualified to rule himself.

A separate Telangana makes sense for one reason alone- that its people want it. One should not suppress the voice of so many people who want to have their own identity and a new state within the legal framework of this nation. Their wants are not illegal or illegitimate. Their wishes do not harm other people. Their aspirations are not taking away rights of others.

A separate Telangana is an eventuality. Prolonging this outcome will only increase the animosity of Telangana people towards those who oppose it. Already we have seen many such protests in Telangana which target Andhra people for their woes. Delaying this eventuality will only cause more pain to the region and will not be good for the future of the two states which share the same language. The people of Andhra Pradesh should welcome this aspiration of its people, respect it and make way for a new Telangana.

When you see the wave of change as an eventuality, you should just embrace it and ride the wave - that's what mature people do.

Update: The later parts of this blog are at Telangana III, Telangana IV.

Hindu Fascism