Terrorism and the Indian State.
Contrary to the popular perception of India as a peaceful, perhaps even somnolent land, this country has known violence in its many forms for as long as memory goes. Why then, this perception; that things are going awry at this point?
Let us start with the question ‘who is an Indian?’ This is a very difficult one to answer; for while identification with a religious or linguistic group, identification with the nebulous idea of a greater Indian nation is difficult. The people most recently responsible for giving the people of the subcontinent a national identity were the British. Truly, there is nothing, which brings diverse people together like a common enemy. But for the most part, there have been precious few people who have had the strength and political acumen to forge this amazingly heterogeneous people into one coherent nation; and one of the most enlightened of these was Emperor Ashok the Great. At the height of its power(250 BC), the Mauryan Empire extended across the extent of modern India and onwards to present day Pakistan and beyond to Kandahar. But it is to be remembered that this forging was done on the anvil that was the battle of Kalinga. The Daya river, which flows by the historic Dhauli hill ran red with the blood of a hundred thousand Oriyas before Kalinga was brought to its knees by the might of Patliputra. The reason why Ashok is called ‘the Great’ is not the conquest that he achieved, but the lesson he learned therefrom. Kalinga ended with Ashok being so sickened by the bloodshed that he turned to Buddhism for solace and entered the evening of his life as a force for enlightenment and peace in South-East Asia. However, the post-script to this story is the decline and fall of the Mauryan Empire a scant fifty years after the end of Ashok’s rule.
There are two main points to this story: the first is that a pan-Indian identity is an externally imposed one and not a natural one. When such an identity competes with a more immediately comprehensible one, such as being a Tamilian, an Oriya or a Goanese, it tends to be eclipsed. Regardless of what our leaders tell us, at this point in history, being a Muhammedan is also somewhat at odds to being an Indian.
The second lesson from our brief historical diversion is that every empire has its own life cycle, just like people do. Empires are born as small movements, they grow in strength and popularity and they grow also by conquest. Sometimes, they are fortunate and enjoy an afternoon of peace and prosperity, when the arts thrive. But this is also the harbinger of eventual decline. This decline starts at the periphery when the capital fails to impose its continual will on the inhabitants. Once set in, the rot can be arrested, but almost never reversed, and the once glorious empire will be dismembered. But hope survives. And this hope tells us that out of the ashes will rise other empires, perhaps so glorious that they will eclipse past achievements a thousandfold. Such is human history. But for the first time, things are different. For the first time, the species has the capability to inflict appalling damage on itself and on Earth.
So again: who is a terrorist? Anyone who is willing to trade civilian lives to attain his goal, which is usually contrary to the government of the day is a terrorist. So, was Subhas Bose a terrorist? Was Tipu Sultan, the Tiger of Srirangapatnam one? Was Chhatrapati Shivaji one? These men were all heroes. But that is the perspective that is afforded by history. What of the opinions of those, who lived through those tumultuous events, which shaped history? Why do we feel that what is happening now is happening for the first time? What is so unique about this century?
A number of different things: first, the very idea that human lives are supremely important is a relatively new one. The idea that man owns this world, and is not merely a part of it is a very Western and a very Christian idea. And after the industrial revolution, it also appears to be very true. Hence, the hullabaloo about human rights. (strictly speaking though, ‘human rights’ actually means ‘Western human rights’: events of the past… say five hundred years stand witness to the fact that the West is quite amazingly hypocritical in its attitude towards the others whom it has enslaved, bombed, burned, shot, spread plagues amidst, and now sells overpriced merchandise in shiny plastic wrappings to). Hence; the outrage. Hence; the media coverage.
The truth, if it may be termed as such, is that the human condition, for the greater part has never been milk and honey. Certainly, it is possibly to live in peace, breathe clean air and drink clean water… but as the Mahatma once said.. ‘the Earth holds enough for every man’s need, but not enough for even one man’s greed’. The East, the Orient, the wogs, call them what you will… have historically held a philosophical perspective which does not imply an adversarial relationship between man and his environment. The colossal arrogance in believing that we can and should mould the world in our image is a Western one. Certainly, the West is also the home of pure rationality; but given the current leadership, one is inclined to believe that Kant, Newton and Lagrange were deviants rather than the supreme products of the Western thought-pool as they are traditionally shown to be. It is this appalling concentration of human wealth in a few hands and the shameless way in which these people have beggared the rest of the world that is the cause for all the discord today. Of course, it is only perceived as being somewhat unfair, because when the haves are not looting the have-nots, they are preaching the equality of man to them. It is this peculiar dichotomy between the words and the actions of our economic (and therefore moral) superiors, which is slightly confusing. Hence terrorism.
Undoubtedly, there are always and will be always be evil men who seek to pervert the hearts and minds of other men and lead them to despicable acts. There are always men who will, for reasons of personal ‘glory’ or some warped justification advocate violence against other people because they live across the river, or mountain, or have brown or yellow skin, or are circumcised, or prefer to break open boiled eggs at the little end. But for the most part, people are content to live and let live. It is only when others find it expedient to deprive them of their ancestral grazing lands and lock them up in ‘reservations’, or expect blind obedience in exchange for bread infested with maggots that people rise up in revolt.
.. to be continued.
Contrary to the popular perception of India as a peaceful, perhaps even somnolent land, this country has known violence in its many forms for as long as memory goes. Why then, this perception; that things are going awry at this point?
Let us start with the question ‘who is an Indian?’ This is a very difficult one to answer; for while identification with a religious or linguistic group, identification with the nebulous idea of a greater Indian nation is difficult. The people most recently responsible for giving the people of the subcontinent a national identity were the British. Truly, there is nothing, which brings diverse people together like a common enemy. But for the most part, there have been precious few people who have had the strength and political acumen to forge this amazingly heterogeneous people into one coherent nation; and one of the most enlightened of these was Emperor Ashok the Great. At the height of its power(250 BC), the Mauryan Empire extended across the extent of modern India and onwards to present day Pakistan and beyond to Kandahar. But it is to be remembered that this forging was done on the anvil that was the battle of Kalinga. The Daya river, which flows by the historic Dhauli hill ran red with the blood of a hundred thousand Oriyas before Kalinga was brought to its knees by the might of Patliputra. The reason why Ashok is called ‘the Great’ is not the conquest that he achieved, but the lesson he learned therefrom. Kalinga ended with Ashok being so sickened by the bloodshed that he turned to Buddhism for solace and entered the evening of his life as a force for enlightenment and peace in South-East Asia. However, the post-script to this story is the decline and fall of the Mauryan Empire a scant fifty years after the end of Ashok’s rule.
There are two main points to this story: the first is that a pan-Indian identity is an externally imposed one and not a natural one. When such an identity competes with a more immediately comprehensible one, such as being a Tamilian, an Oriya or a Goanese, it tends to be eclipsed. Regardless of what our leaders tell us, at this point in history, being a Muhammedan is also somewhat at odds to being an Indian.
The second lesson from our brief historical diversion is that every empire has its own life cycle, just like people do. Empires are born as small movements, they grow in strength and popularity and they grow also by conquest. Sometimes, they are fortunate and enjoy an afternoon of peace and prosperity, when the arts thrive. But this is also the harbinger of eventual decline. This decline starts at the periphery when the capital fails to impose its continual will on the inhabitants. Once set in, the rot can be arrested, but almost never reversed, and the once glorious empire will be dismembered. But hope survives. And this hope tells us that out of the ashes will rise other empires, perhaps so glorious that they will eclipse past achievements a thousandfold. Such is human history. But for the first time, things are different. For the first time, the species has the capability to inflict appalling damage on itself and on Earth.
So again: who is a terrorist? Anyone who is willing to trade civilian lives to attain his goal, which is usually contrary to the government of the day is a terrorist. So, was Subhas Bose a terrorist? Was Tipu Sultan, the Tiger of Srirangapatnam one? Was Chhatrapati Shivaji one? These men were all heroes. But that is the perspective that is afforded by history. What of the opinions of those, who lived through those tumultuous events, which shaped history? Why do we feel that what is happening now is happening for the first time? What is so unique about this century?
A number of different things: first, the very idea that human lives are supremely important is a relatively new one. The idea that man owns this world, and is not merely a part of it is a very Western and a very Christian idea. And after the industrial revolution, it also appears to be very true. Hence, the hullabaloo about human rights. (strictly speaking though, ‘human rights’ actually means ‘Western human rights’: events of the past… say five hundred years stand witness to the fact that the West is quite amazingly hypocritical in its attitude towards the others whom it has enslaved, bombed, burned, shot, spread plagues amidst, and now sells overpriced merchandise in shiny plastic wrappings to). Hence; the outrage. Hence; the media coverage.
The truth, if it may be termed as such, is that the human condition, for the greater part has never been milk and honey. Certainly, it is possibly to live in peace, breathe clean air and drink clean water… but as the Mahatma once said.. ‘the Earth holds enough for every man’s need, but not enough for even one man’s greed’. The East, the Orient, the wogs, call them what you will… have historically held a philosophical perspective which does not imply an adversarial relationship between man and his environment. The colossal arrogance in believing that we can and should mould the world in our image is a Western one. Certainly, the West is also the home of pure rationality; but given the current leadership, one is inclined to believe that Kant, Newton and Lagrange were deviants rather than the supreme products of the Western thought-pool as they are traditionally shown to be. It is this appalling concentration of human wealth in a few hands and the shameless way in which these people have beggared the rest of the world that is the cause for all the discord today. Of course, it is only perceived as being somewhat unfair, because when the haves are not looting the have-nots, they are preaching the equality of man to them. It is this peculiar dichotomy between the words and the actions of our economic (and therefore moral) superiors, which is slightly confusing. Hence terrorism.
Undoubtedly, there are always and will be always be evil men who seek to pervert the hearts and minds of other men and lead them to despicable acts. There are always men who will, for reasons of personal ‘glory’ or some warped justification advocate violence against other people because they live across the river, or mountain, or have brown or yellow skin, or are circumcised, or prefer to break open boiled eggs at the little end. But for the most part, people are content to live and let live. It is only when others find it expedient to deprive them of their ancestral grazing lands and lock them up in ‘reservations’, or expect blind obedience in exchange for bread infested with maggots that people rise up in revolt.
.. to be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment