SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA
ARCHIVES

The 'twain shall meet

What goes around comes around. A few months ago, on India Central, I let loose with my criticism of Justice Jain's report, seeing it as a profound example of the tendency in our society to group people based on stereotypes. Many of you wrote to express your synonymous views, strengthening my conviction that regionalism need not be anti-national, and that for the most part, we have upheld this duality very well.

So, it is with a good measure of irony, and indeed misgiving, that I now turn to the other side. Or, to put it accurately, the other side now stares me in the face. Much as we admire the simultaneous embrace of state and nation, we must wonder if this pride is easily transformed into hate, notwithstanding all the togetherness it claims. Yessir, we love India, and never mind the differences. But the question then arises -- who isn't the sort of Indian we are?

This question was first prompted by the award of the Bharat Ratna to C Subramaniam some time ago, marking the third time running that it has been made to a Tamilian. At least a few reports have pointed to this remarkable fact. Indeed, the Bharat Ratna has an incredible history of Tamil recipients, far in excess of the fraction of the nation's population that resides in the state. The three recent awards have merely added to that.

If that suggests a certain accomplishment among particular groups that is lacking in others, then it is certainly something to think about. With sickening news from the BIMARU states a never-ending story, it is not unreasonable for many of us to think that we are slowly forging two different Indias. One that is capable, future-oriented, and progressive, and another that is mired in intractable problems and rampant lawlessless. The heartland is adrift from the achievers.

Along the western coast, in the fields of Punjab and Haryana, and all over the south, India is an awakening nation, striding towards her destiny. Elsewhere, though, India is a bitter pill, riven with division, unmanageable and lawless, and to a large degree illiterate and hopeless. UP, Bihar, MP and Rajasthan, most often identified as the sick men of India, have by now reached the state where one is no longer shocked at anything that happens there. Rajasthan, with its airy-fairy tourist industry and cultural colours, looms less dark in this account, but for the others, redeeming qualities are hard to come by.

I may have put all this rather starkly, but I do so not so much with dismissiveness as with concern. In elite fora like Rediff, it is important that we keep certain invisible facts in mind. Increasingly, the globe-trotting Indians are drawn not from the ranks of the entire population, but from the elite of the land. In some ways, this might be only intellectual elitism, and therefore not exclusive. Still, it is clear that the differences inherent in Indian society are manifest among the elite, and expectedly so.

It is a safe bet that among Rediff readers, for example, Tamilians, Punjabis, Maharashtrians, Keralites, Delhi-ites, Gujaratis, and other relatively successful groups from India are well represented. Notably, those from UP, MP, Bihar and Rajasthan, as well as from the northeastern states, are simply absent. The disproportionately high representation of Hindus, Sikhs and Christians is also evident, a fact that has not escaped our Muslim readers.

For one who who believes passionately in India, all this finger-pointing divisiveness is hard to come to terms with. Yet, unless we recognise and address this stark reality, we will lose the India that we know and love. An India without Hardwar and Varanasi, Patna and Jaipur, is no India at all. The acceptance of differences is the surest way to defeat. If India today is a freer and more optimistic nation than its biggest neighbours on either side, it is because we have marginally at least embraced the notions of equality and oneness better than they have.

We must strive to maintain this. If, in the list of recipients of the Bharat Ratna, we only see that too many of them are Tamilian, and too few are Bihari, we insult the services of the leading lights who received the award. If 20 per cent of the awards were reserved for minorities, 1 in 8 for UPwallahs and so on, those awards will quickly lose their precious meaning.

Much as we cherish and applaud the efforts of Dr Kalam, Ms Subbulakshmi and Dr Subramaniam, we cannot in good faith hold them up as shining examples of Tamil pride. The Bharat Ratna is an award instituted and awarded in the name of the Indian people, not in the name of regional factions within the population. Indeed, the contributions of the latest jewels of India are giant, and invite acclaim well beyond the boundaries of their native lands, and that is precisely why they won this award.

Let us instead salute Dr Subramaniam, Ms Subbulakshmi and Dr Kalam, not as Tamilians, but as Indians. Let us recognise them for what they have striven to demonstrate -- a pan-Indian contribution to all Indians. Not very many years ago, the Government of India posthumously recognised with the same award Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a man in whose life and beliefs this pan-Indian outlook was exemplified.

At the height of the horrors of Partition, with numerous Muslims convinced of their second-class status in their own motherland, he exhorted them not to leave their pitrubhoomi. As none beside him did, and few since have, he exemplified and upheld an India that we only dream of now, declaring that "I am proud to be an Indian, I am a part of the indivisible unity that is Indian nationality, I can never give up this claim". The finest sons and daughters of India have upheld this tradition, and it bears upholding now as much as it ever did.

Casting ourselves in a positive light is a desirable thing insofar as national integrity and constructive federalism are concerned, but make no mistake -- if our only recourse is to cast others in poor light, then we have gained little. We are a civic and ethnic nation of diversity. Let chest-beating over ethnic pride not become an excuse for abandoning our civic sense of oneness. Nor should we excuse leaders who ignore the larger interest of the nation while claiming to champion the interests of their states.

Which brings me to the newest twist in the tales of division. As the wrangling over the various portfolios in the Union government dragged on, we repeatedly heard references to a "special package" for Tamil Nadu. These emanated both from the AIADMK-led front, which tom-tomed its intention to extract this pound of flesh from the BJP government, and from the DMK government of Tamil Nadu, whose leaders were certain that Jayalalitha could extract no special deal, and labeled the whole thing little more than a charade to defeat the court cases against her.

Several details of this special package popped up from time to time. Nationalising rivers, affirming 69 per cent reservation, elevating the status of Tamil, etc come to mind readily. When the special package failed to materialise in an obvious quid pro quo form, Dr Subramanian Swamy was loud in his insistence that the BJP government would not be able to ignore Tamil Nadu. Newfound ideas and loyalties can hardly be novel to Swamy, and I suppose he can be forgiven for portraying himself as the guardian of Tamil interests.

Whatever his intent, the failure to obtain the special package is probably for the best. For if we are to truly cherish India, we must oppose such narrow demands. If our members of Parliament are to be judged by their ability to extract special concessions for us, then we will slide further into separate realms and cease to see the whole that appeals to us now. The measure of the politician's service cannot lie in our regional identities.

If Dr Swamy truly wishes to guard Tamil interests, then he had best set about ensuring that no state, whatever the particular clout of its politicians, ensnares disproportionate benefits from the Center. For every occasion when Tamil parties acquire such a position of strength, there will be many others when they do not. Subramanian Swamy working special favours for Tamilians is as improper as I K Gujral writing off Punjabi debt, the fact that I'm Tamilian and not a Punjabi has no bearing on either impropriety.

As for the notion that without such a demand, Tamil interests will be ignored, that is simply ludicrous. Tamil voters have demonstrated repeatedly that they are perfectly capable of rendering judgement of all political groups in the state, and there is no reason to think this will change. Sure, we want politicians who take care of our needs, but we will never be well served by those who claim to care about us based on our particular identities.

Chandrababu Naidu's recent bargaining, conducted under the pretext of extracting a better deal for Andhra, is to be similarly condemned. Underwriting the populism of local leaders is not the responsibility of the Centre, nor is it proper to expect other Indians to bear the costs of indiscretions on the part of regional chieftains. Whatever this special package might do for Andhra, we cannot overlook what it will do to India. Regional interests that don't serve the national interest are not in anyone's interest.

Dump the packages, and build India.

How readers reacted to Ashwin Mahesh's recent columns

Ashwin Mahesh