India is a country of 26 states, all of which represent a single language, and many of which are the only region where that language is spoken. Although Hindi is the most widely spoken and the so-called "official language", 17 more languages are actually listed as official. Most of these languages have been used in cultural activities like literature, poetry, drama, cinema. On the other hand, for a country to exist as a single entity, there must be something common. Lots of books have been written about unity in diversity in India. Most people accept this theory, though some do not. And yet India has survived for over 64 years, and it can be said with poise that it will continue to survive long. Whatever the case, a question often discussed in india is, do people put their regional identities ahead of national identity? I am from the State of West Bengal, and I have often heard the question being discussed in mass media, "Are we Bengali first or Indian first?" Let me try to answer this question logically.
Before starting the debate, let us think: what are the definitions of "Bengali" and "Indian"? One possible answer is very objective and factual: a person whose mother tongue is the language bengali is "Bengali", and a person whose nationality is Indian is "Indian". Well if these are the definitions, then the question in question is quite meaningless as mother-tongue and nationality are not comparable. Then the people asking the question surely don't consider this definition. Possibly they are talking about identification with a community of people. A person identifies himself with another person if they have similar culture and taste in common. Possibly by "Bengali" they mean a person who identifies himself with other Bengalis, and the base case of this recursion is one who speaks the Bengali language, follows Bengali literature and arts, eats rice, fish and some other particular dishes, celebrates Durga Puja, enjoys Sourav Ganguly's batting etc. What about Indian? Possibly a person who identifies himself with other indians, and the base case being a person who lives or once lived somewhere in the nation called India, speaks one of the Indian languages, follows the art/literature in some Indian etc etc.
Next comes the question. As I see, one possible interpretation of the question is, "Should we put the interest of the Bengali community ahead of the interest of India?" Another interpretation may be, "Do we identify with Bengali people much more easily than people with the rest of India?" In other words, "Do the people of other parts of India appear foreign to us compared to Bengalis?"
There are two main ways of viewing hierarchies. Firstly, a person is himself, then he belongs to his state/linguistic group, then to his country, then to his continent, then to his planet, then to his galaxy etc. This is the bottom-up approach. The top-down approach will say, a person first belongs to the universe, then galaxy, then planet, the continent, then country, then state, and lastly himself. It is easy to see, the first approach says "Bengali first", and the second approach says "Indian first". Which of these approaches should be taken? Remember we have given two interpretations of the question. If the first interpretation (weighing of interest) is true, then of course one should be Indian first, as it is ethical to put interest of a larger cause ahead of those of a smaller cause. If building an atom bomb strengthens my country's position against its enemy, but also puts the world's safety and security in doubt, the bomb should not be built. Again if selecting an incompetant cricketer from my state into the national team gives some prestige to my state but weakens the team, it is not worth doing.
Regarding the second interpretation of the question (weighing of identity), the answer is much more complicated. For identification purpose the bottom-up approach is more natural, but the different steps in the hierarchy may not be equally important to a person in terms of identifying himself. In fact the most important step for a person may be missing from the hierarchy stated above. For example one can identify himself with people from his city/village only, and all other people look equally alien to him, even if they say the same language. A step in the mentioned hierarchy which is not significant to most people is the continent, at least for Asians. Africans and Europeans, in my belief, do attach some weightage to their continental identities. So it can wholly differ from person to person how he identifies himself with his linguistic group rather than to his country. As far as I am concerned, I can say without doubt that I identify fully with the "Indian" community, not at all with the "Bengali" community. Yes, my mother tongue is Bengali, i speak it, i follow bengali literature, music and cinema to some extent, and also celebrate durga puja. But i don't particularly identify with other people who do these things. I live in a campus with people from all over the country, but people not doing the above things do not seem alien to me at all. While I certainly have many friends who are from West Bengal and/or do all those things, i also have one friend from each of Punjab, Uttaranchal, Gujarat, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Kerala, and several from Rajasthan, Delhi, UP, MP, Maharashtra, Karnataka, AP and TN. I never feel different from them, in fact i am fascinated to see the similarities in the mindsets, ettiquettes, customs, and even languages. And again, i have many differences from Bengalies: i do not like rice and do not eat fish, and am no great fan of Sourav Ganguly. I do watch bengali movies, but like bollywood more. I speak bengali at home, but in campus i speak more hindi and english. So i have no doubt that i am indian only, not bengali.
Finally, SHOULD one be bengali first or indian first? If the first interpretation (weighing of interests) is being considered, then i have already given the answer. If the weighing of identities is being considered, then too i feel one should be indian first. Most "bengali" people i have come across attach significant weights to both
the nation and the linguistic steps. That is fine, i just feel the weightage at the nation step should be more, for the sake of india's unity. It is only natural that people may love their mother-tongue and their food and festival and the cricket icon who does and loves all these. But given that india needs to stay united as a nation, one should also try to adjust themselves with the languages and habits of the other parts of india. It is not difficult to do. One just needs to keep a broad mind, and far more unities will show up than diversities. And if someone thinks he cannot manage without speaking bengali all the time, or eating bengali-style food etc, then it is an inability on his part. But apart from inability, if someone refuses to do so and insists that his "bengali"-step is more important, then i cannot say what he is wrong or illogical, i can only say that he is opposed to the ideals of an united india, and hence my enemy from this perspective. On the other hand if someone says
that for him the Bengali and Indian steps are not important, he is a globally-minded person who can identify with anyone from any country, i think he is somewhat advanced of his ages, but i do not criticize him.
No comments:
Post a Comment