The Politics of “Identity”
Many of you would remember the controversy surrounding Jaya Bachchan from a few months ago, triggered by a speech she gave in Hindi in Mumbai. Writing about it, Tarun Vijay wrote (emphasis mine):
What are the centrifugal forces that keep the nation as one? A sense of belonging to common aspirations, icons of faith, and a commitment to widely acceptable pan-national vision.
…At the sub-conscious level the smaller identities and localised regionalism have become the mainstay of not only politics but also of the media…increasing levels of prosperity and literacy have made smaller identities emerge as a big decisive factor in market economy and vote bank politics.
Regional parties and regional editions (now) play a bigger role than the national ones. This looks attractive in the beginning…but in the long run, it affects the national life and dilutes the feeling of oneness, thinning the resistance of socio-cultural integration.
…sadly these days the politics of vote bank thrives on these very tendencies of sub-national assertions.
…In the Bhagvad Gita there is a beautiful verse that says social leaders create a path that is followed by the common people. What kind of path are these so-called leaders creating for the common people to adopt? It is a path that doesn’t strengthen the feelings of oneness and harmony.
That prompted me to think about “Identity”…and what might be India/Bharat’s defining identity? This question is not an easy one to deal with…I have been searching for an “answer” for several years now…and I still cannot say with confidence that I am close to it.
Closely linked to “national identity” is of course the idea of “nationalism”…In the last few years, nationalism has increasingly become a dirty word…one best avoided in polite conversations and asscociated more with shrill and aggressive assertions rather than a reasoned discourse.
As a corollary, the idea of “identity” has suffered too. So, when I chanced upon this article in a recent issue of Democratiya – on “defending Identity”, I thought I should share it with others on this blog.
The article is actually a review of Defending Identity (by Natan Sharansky) by David Lowe. David writes (emphasis mine):
In a celebrated essay written nearly 40 years ago, Isaiah Berlin (portrayed)…the phenomenon of nationalism as a people’s aggressive response to persecution and humiliation—’an inflamed condition of national consciousness.’
…Nationalism would be challenged by 19th century doctrines of liberal rationalism propagated by those Berlin described as ‘unswerving champions of reason, who rejected faith in tradition, intuition, transcendent sources of authority as mere smokescreens to justify irrationality, ignorance, bias, fear of the truth.’ [2]
Today, nationalism and close relatives such as ethnic and cultural solidarity are frequently associated with bigotry, violence, and even genocide.
This point of view has had particular resonance among political and intellectual elites. As Samuel Huntington wrote in 2004, ‘The moralistic approach [to international relations] decries patriotism and nationalism as evil forces and argues that international law, institutions, regimes, and norms are morally superior to those of individual nations.’ [3]
That the values of freedom and identity are directly, and not inversely, related, is the thesis of a new book by Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident and Israeli politician.
…To promote the virtue of ethnic, national, and religious identity in the year 2008 will strike many as similarly perverse. In fact, political scientists who address the subject of ethnic nationalism almost always do so with an eye toward creating structures and political arrangements that will mitigate its negative impact, which is simply assumed. Still, there are important exceptions.
Asserting that ‘democracy never exists without nationalism,’ the Georgian political philosopher Ghia Nodia points out that:
Democracy has always emerged in distinct communities; there is no record anywhere of free, unconnected, and calculating individuals coming together spontaneously to form a democratic social contract ex nihilo. Whether we like it or not, nationalism is the historical force that has provided the political units for democratic government. [6]
…Sharansky is not simply concerned with the dilution of identity; he is even more troubled by its replacement in the West with the post-modern values of post-nationalism and multi-culturalism, a particularly dangerous trend in a world where democratic values are under siege. Maintaining a strong national identity, Sharansky argues, is the only serious way to protect a democratic culture.
…Today, throughout Europe and in many quarters in the United States, national identity is on the defensive. In reaction to centuries of war and bloody ethnic conflict, a culture has developed that questions the value of nationhood. Sharansky offers the example of John Lennon’s vision in his song Imagine, in which he longs for a world without religions or nations, a ‘brotherhood of man’ in which there will be ‘nothing to kill or die for.’ (Barack Obama echoed this sentiment in his July speech in Berlin in which he exhorted, ‘The walls between the races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.’)
While Lennon’s vision gains support among western elites, it is rejected and even ridiculed by freedom’s enemies. In contrast to ambiguous ideals of transnational brotherhood, authoritarian regimes successfully mobilise nationalist chauvinism while jihadist and other extremist movements provide their adherents precisely the sense of purpose that makes them such a formidable threat to the values of freedom and democracy. ‘Without a similar strength of purpose and identity,’ Sharansky argues, ‘the free world will not long be able to repel the assault against it.’ [9]
…By contrast (Sharansky belives), democracy without identity can become superficial and meaningless…
…America’s traditions of pluralism, Sharansky argues, in which a fundamental commitment to democracy forms the lynch pin among a diverse set of identity groups, has by and large avoided these pitfalls. Because European history, by contrast, has been characterised by an antagonism between democracy and identity, ‘the choice presented in this struggle is seen as clear: one can embrace the particular or the universal; be a citizen of a nation-state or a citizen of the world; be a member of a particular faith devoted to his co-religionists or a humanist devoted to all mankind.’ It is little wonder, therefore, that the weakening of national identity in Europe has led to a weakening of democratic institutions. [13]
Sharansky uses the example of the veil worn by devout Muslim women and its banning in the public square in many parts of Europe to contrast American and European approaches to identity. He is critical of the suppression of religious differences in the name of promoting a cosmopolitanism that values all cultures equally, while at the same time granting citizenship ‘without requiring language skills, civic education, or even conformity to laws against polygamy.’ [14] Sharansky favors the American perspective of encouraging diversity while linking those individuals and groups committed to specific histories, traditions, and ways of life through ‘a common commitment to democracy.’ [15]
Sharansky may be right about the differences between American and European political culture, but the philosophy of post-nationalism is by no means confined to Europe. As Huntington has pointed out, national identity in the United States has taken a back seat among ‘the more cosmopolitan elites’ that elevate global economic and political concerns. [16] And in Sharansky’s own country, Israel, those who accept the Zionist dream of creating and maintaining a Jewish state that recognises the rights of minorities have been put on the defensive by ‘post-Zionists’ who question the very legitimacy of a nation that has a distinctive Jewish identity.
…Sharansky exposes the double standards and hypocrisy of those who argue that while nationalism must be eliminated in the West, it is perfectly justified in weaker societies. He is particularly critical of international human rights groups that fail to distinguish between rights violations in open and closed societies, as if the abuses characteristic of authoritarian regimes are indistinguishable from deviations from democratic practices in democracies that are brought to light precisely because of their transparency. And he is scathing in his condemnation of post-Zionists who argue that Israel must be transformed into a secular state while at the same time preaching a self-determination for the Palestinians that would preserve their Arab identity ‘as part of the surrounding Arab and Islamic world.’ [18]
From their struggles against fascism in World War II to their triumph over totalitarianism in the Cold War, Western democracies have weathered systematic efforts to weaken and destroy them. Today they face new, but in many ways similar, challenges. Whether they can muster the strength of purpose to confront these challenges may well depend upon the extent to which they are willing to defend their core values in the face of those who would weaken them in the name of vague notions of peace and the ‘brotherhood of man.’ Natan Sharansky has made an eloquent argument on how best to defend and strengthen these values. We ignore it at our peril.
Read the review in full here (courtesy Democratiya).
If this has not provoked sufficient thought already, here is an excerpt from Sir V S Naipaul’s highly acclaimed work, “India: A Wounded Civilisation” - that neatly captures my angst about fractured Identities:
At dinner that evening, high up in one of those towers, a journalist touched the subject of identity. “Indian” was a word that was now without meaning, he said. He himself, he was in his thirties, of the post-Independence generation, no longer knew who he was. He no longer knew the Hindu gods. His grandmother, visiting Khajuraho or some other famous temple, would immediately be in tune with what she saw; she wouldn’t need to be told about the significance of the carvings. He was like a tourist; he saw only an architectural monument. He had lost the key to a whole world of belief and feeling, and was cut off from his past.
Does anyone of you feel the same?
Related Posts:
“Reclaiming India†– excerpts
“The Idea of India†– *must read*
There is a “राषà¥à¤Ÿà¥à¤°â€ in “महाराषà¥à¤Ÿà¥à¤°â€â€¦
Of Bangalore, Bengaluru and Fractured Identities
Also read: A “nationalism†rooted in Sanatan Dharma
Interesting article. As you have pointed out defining or characterizing national identity seems impossible. If I ask myself why do I feel for India. It is a combination of many things. Maybe most of all because my whole identity and those of my loved ones is tied to India. But at an individual level, probably I dont behave any differently with a foreigner than what I do with Indians.
In these times when people are getting more and more individualistic it is even harder to say why what links us to a nation. Is it just familiarity?
Very thought provoking article.
Ivs: I think (and hope) that what links us to India/Bharat is more than just “familiarity”…
I feel the links are a combination of tangible (family, assets, homes) and the intangible…such as feelings of pride, memories, a shared sense of destiny, a sense of belonging, an affinity to the culture, a sense of devotion…
Identity is of course much harded to “define”.
What do others think?
Dear Shantanu,
I briefly glanced thru the article and it was facinating.
A few thoughts came to my mind which I thought I should put down immediately before they slip my mind.
If Shri. Obama has really expressed that then he is a true Sanatana Dharmist.
The principle of Sanatana Dharma is as simple as he has expressed.
The rain falls on the ground in droplets. It then forms a pool and then forms rivulet and flows down into the SEA! Yes Sir the SEA! and nothing else.
Can Anyone identify that this drop of water came from India, from North India, from UP, from Muzzafarnagar District, from a village near this town etc. etc.
Nobody, not even GOD can do it, whosoever may call me a Blasphemer!
Similarly where is the identity as regards humans. We make the difference.
We Wear veils, skull caps, pigtails, a cross belt; but on the whole we are reaching to ultimate thought of thoughtlessness, the Brahman.
Identies will lose shape as they develop. Cars can be made small, big, bigger engines more powerful, but their ultimate use is commutation!
Similarly whosoever one is the ultimate reality is the attainment of that level of Brahman where the world goes around you and you are THAT.
What makes a nation is how we create it as we create families. Is there a family for GOD, as we try to evaluate it, or is he beyond it.
Relationships happen and happen, but which relationship is that we talk about.
As the Buddha says, I have gone thru ten thousand births, Which relationship is one talking about.
This article was really thought provoking.
Regards,
vck
I strongly agree with Shantanu.
As an NRI I now better understand the meaning of “IDENTITY”.
“NATIONALISM” is a broad spectrum of BELIEF, FAITH, CULTURE and ASSOCIATION.
The simplest meaning of IDENTITY is “How a person personifies his presence without uttering a word”.
For the sake of argument, lets talk about our lives in BHARAT. All Bhartis, as we were tought since childhood, believe in one thing (Dharma), preached something else (What our Parents, Elders and Teachers taught) and do something else (what we do day to day to support ouselves and our families).
This is the biggest disconnect in all BHRATIS. I don’t blame them. It is a “Survival tactics” since our forefathers adopted since 19 AD, the first foreign invasion begun. Since then knowingly / unknowingly it turned into a common value.
AAryan
Kudos!
I think Naipaul’s passage says it so well. He has summed up the whole problem so well.
In “Among the Believers”, Naipual writes ” A convert rejects his/her origins by impulse” Very true.
Identity is an interesting, amorphous and ambiguous concept. It is the resultant of one’s experiences, implicit and explicit, learnings, understanding, analysis and introspection. It is a “Who am I?” question in the aggregate. There are multiple identities as Amartya Sen has argued. If the answer to “Who am I?” is a selfless intellect, then identity has no meaning. If the answer lies in ego & self & esteem, then identity has meaning. It would be fair to assume that almost all of us seek & indeed desire identity as a means of affirmation (hey, I’m from India as are you – let us be friends/hang out together), assertive proclamation (Yoga is Indian! Pride in AR Rehman winning Oscars etc) and acceptance (I’m OK, you’re OK);
Nation-states had their origins in European homogeneity – religion, language, food, etc so nationalism was inherent in the state. On the other hand, if we assume the world will be a melting pot in the long run, then what?
As the world becomes increasingly global, will the nation-state endure? Of course there will be protectionists and assertions of national pride and claims of being de-nationalised along the way to a mixed world.
My own views are that identities are in substantial part shaped by power and influence. The more powerful a nation, the more it shapes and influences the behaviours of the others that come into contact with it. It exports its behaviours to the weaker nations. For example, American soft power (media, music, fast-food, jeans, movies, brands, education) plays a huge role in impacting other “national identities”. Similar is the case with French cuisine & wines, haute couture, perfumes; Italian design; Swiss chocolates; etc. Notice how it is cool to speak French, know how to order the right French wine with the appropriate snobbishness, etc.
Indians tend to take great pride in our ancient wisdoms and glorious past. Because they were and are worth taking pride in! We’re less assured about ourselves when talking about medieval India and thereafter. Post 1991, we’ve again found metaphors to hang our pride on (IT prowess, entrepreneurial talent, etc), not the least because they’ve been acknowledged in the West. The West is “superior” because they are essentially economically far stronger.
Japan has been the only Asian country in the last 50 years to have been an economic powerhouse and hence Japanese culture while being remarkably Americanised (music and baseball for example) has retained and perhaps grown its own identity. Being conscious of Japanese customs (eg. all Westerners address Japanese peers with the “san” honorific rather than just a Mr; Do they address Indians with a ji, for example?) We see the same phenomenon in China today as it becomes increasingly assertive, confident and challenging – all because it now realises that it is a powerful economic engine. Eating with chop sticks and learning Mandarin are the rage. India in the last half decade has also become confident about itself thanks to its economic growth. Everything else has happened as a resultant. Yoga and Ayurvedic massage centres, which had all but disappeared from India for all practical purposes, are seeing unprecedented revivals. Kalaripayattu classes are not unheard of either! Bollywood is stretching its muscles as well. The almost cocky self-assertion and confidence in the youth today hasn’t happened in a vacuum – it has happended because India is slowly happening. Eating with fingers will also then hopefully become cool worldwide!
The impoverished Dalit farmer or the tribal from the North East must have the same sense of being Indian as PLUs (People Like Us). Economic mobility drives social mobility. Both drive identity.
What will sustain this however will be an journey of discovery by Indians through Indian eyes. Education is the crucial determinant here. Ultimately, what sets aside the modern developed West from the others is the creation of institutions all bound by the rule of law but with sufficient checks and balances for all to practice their beliefs and way of life.
I am a Hindu first, a Hindu last and a Hindu forever. 😉
Sanjay, I agree that the world is increasingly becoming a melting pot but I am not sure if identity is getting any less salient.
I think the nation-state will endure for at least a couple of centuries more, if not more. This is just my personal opinion and I may be completely wrong.
I agree with your view about identity being shaped in substantial part…by power and influence.” and this statement is spot on:“The almost cocky self-assertion and confidence in the youth today hasn’t happened in a vacuum – it has happended because India is slowly happening. Eating with fingers will also then hopefully become cool worldwide! ” – Superbly put.
As you said, “Education” is indeed the key…more importantly the right kind of education – not one that removes you further from your roots -as in the Naipaul quote above.
Thanks for a great comment.
***
@ Hindu: I hope you are a “Bharatiya” too!
I am going to contrast what national identity has meant in the real sense. It is certainly the case that religion has provided the narrative for a well settled community to crystalise into a country or nation. In Japan and China the mythical origin of their people coincides with separate and different ethnic identities.
India’s Hindu mythology beginnings is hardly any different. At the risk of offending those who will decry that offend our rich heritage of Hindu thought and culture, if our narrative had ended there we would be much surer of our identity and our achievements so much greater. We would have been able to build the Indian equivalent of the Chinese wall to fend off attacks from the North. That would have meant a wall along portions of the Himalayas and the West. This would have have challanged our feelings that the Himalayas are the abodes of the Gods.
Hinduism whose preachings extended far and wide into Asia could never have anticipated the maulings India received at the hand of Alexander the Great and the many others that followed after him. This was the price Hindu India paid for its ancient version of multi-culturalism. I live in age where science answers all the questions I might ask for my existance but out of necessity, I feel it necessary to tidy up the narrative that defines my Indian identity. The Western liberal identity despites its new lease of life under Obama is in very serious trouble. The fact remains that for the West, their white population is in decline and that vacuum is being filled by Muslims. Hindus are mere bystanders in the change that is taking place. India is similarly, even more seriously affected. It seems from the discourse taking place that liberal democracy prevails in India: what hangs aroung India’s neck is a liberal form of despotism that presides over poverty of the majority of its population.
The people may have the vote, but just like our Hindu religion that imprisoned in ignorance and bigotry, India’s political class has had no difficult task in preserving their stranglehold over the country. I would not say that we are nation because to achieve that we would have go much further in agreement of a suitable narrative.
I agree Khandu: Finding the narrative is the key… We will be discussing this issue (regarding Identity) at our next meeting (of the political discussion group in London).
I hope you can join.
This a brilliant piece from R Jagannathan
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1261718
The short point is that no society anywhere has really ended racism or communalism or casteism to this day. What the western democracies have achieved is the ability to deal with the issue in a more sophisticated manner, by making overt racism and discrimination illegal. Their strong legal systems help mitigate the rougher aspects of racism. But beneath the surface, the problem continues to lurk.
VERY RELEVANT to this discussion, please read
Why India Is A Nation
http://sankrant.sulekha.com/blog/post/2003/10/why-india-is-a-nation.htm
A snippet from the Sankrant’s brilliant essay
The Idea of India
This then becomes our second question – is the idea of India as a unit a new idea brought by the British or did it exist long before the British came? Did the people of this vast land recognize that they were linked together? Did they share a common story of their civilization, of their Indian-ness, their Bharatiyata? Remarkably, the idea of India, as Bharatavarsha or Aryavrata, appears to have been alive for thousands of years in our stories, thousands of years before there was an America or a Great Britain or a Mexico or France.
When the British arrived on the scene, Hindu India had suplanted by Moghul rule under a sovereign. Muslim rule was an established fact and their rule extended as far as Afghanistan. The Hindu Kingdoms that had secured autonomy still continued their tributes to the Emperor at Delhi. That period of Indian history can best be described as one of multi-ethnic empire not as nation states as we understand the term. That was how the British found India. Their studies did establish a unity a cultural and religious unity for nationhood to be claimed but that was in the distant past which is different from the position we are in at the present time. Bharat is now synonymous with India and now as a republic more diverse than it was in ancient times.
The idea of the nation state has its origins in the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. This introduced the concept of state sovereignty. If it did not settle all border issues, it pacified and allowed balance of power play their part in place of war to determine disputes.
The problem we had in India at independence is that a Muslim minority claimed a separate nationhood as indeed others are now claiming today for similar reasons. I am thinking of many Nagas who now think of themselves as Christians although they had hithertoo been on the bounderies of Hindu influence and culture. Any discussion on the nationhood issue is going to have address a wide range of dynamics. Revisiting the narrative on many front cannot be avoided.
Avinash: Thanks for the link and comment. I think the point you make is very valid. There really is no perfect society…
***
@ VoP: Great link…Thanks for alerting me to it.
***
@ Khandu: In case you have not already done so, pl. do have a look at the link provided by VoP (comment #13). You will find it thought-provoking.
“eating with fingers will also …worldwide” says sanjay above.
oh yes .. a friend who was invited to dinner asked me, ” can you show me how to eat rice with fingers ?
–when india becomes the new black ( power and influence as sanjay says it ) the world will move towards its direction.
We only need more C’s – Courage, Conviction and Confidence of our indian identity ( but don’t be cocky about it! )
Dear Shantanu,,
DEfinitions change with the stage of development of a society, and that is why what is applicable to Europion society, or American society need not be applicable to Indian society..
For us, the result we are getting on ground is more important than glossy ideals !!! And great ideals not compatible with condition of a society can effectively destroy that society..
Another important point is that understanding meaning of Unity. Unity with respect to values, interests, religion, culture, economy, administration, polity, judiciary, legislature, ethnicity, etc.. are all different.. and should be treated accordingly..
for me:-
1.my identity = my membership of a group.
2.identity is mostly hierarchical.
the existence in a group by an individual is desired due to the following reasons.
1.desire of survivability.
2.commonality of desires with most members in the group.
the sum total of the positive feelings felt by the individual members of the group within themselves w.r.t to these two factors is the strength of the identity of the group and it’s members.
to expand on the theme:-
1.the basic factor for the group formation is survival.so each member seeks the group that gives the maximal survivability to him.
2.after the survival is ensured the members seek to derive maximal happiness from their membership in the group.or the individual is most happy in a group that has the maximum potntial of satisfying his individual desires.and the individual is happy to identify himself as a groupmember,thereby taking up an identity.
also the membership of a group in case of national identity is mostly forced on an individual due to his location in a geographical area.this forced membership may/maynot ensure the level of positivity of the two factors desired by the individual/sub-group,whereby he/sub-group will seek to rectify the situation by whatever means he/sub-group may deem fit.
with this back ground we can try and analyse different identities and their strength.
e.g.the indian identity.
this is a hierarchy formed from the regional,sub-regional,caste & religious … identities.many times two regional identities may clash but the desire for a common national identity remains strong in the feuding regional identities,thus ensuring the acceptance of the broad national identity by both the sub-groups.in this respect the hindu religious ethos are a big factor present in most of the members sharing the indian identity,thereby giving hindu identity as a synonym for the indian identity.
in short an individual’s identity is his membership of a group that while ensuring his survivability gives him the maximal possibility of fulfilling his desires,and accords him happiness due to his membership of the group.
this for me is the framework in which to analyze the “politics of identity”.