Wednesday, 14 September 2016
Friday, 2 September 2016
I'm sitting in a train bound for Bangalore. A city where people from so many different places congregate to make a living. One might assume that the train bound for Bangalore might be filled with quite an array of pluralistic men and women who get along with many cultures. But I seem to have the misfortune of being stuck with 2 burly men who cannot stop berating the woes of having North Indian people (indha Hindi kaaranunga) "take our jobs". Seems even the Railway Police Force should be controlled by the state in which the train runs! Haha! Are these the sort of people that predominate our diverse country or are they mere dots in a sea of people with great respect for other ethnicities? Am I just naïve in assuming that the latter is true?
For a country that fought oppression together and is divided by states but united as a nation, do we still see India as a country that is an amalgamation of many states or do we see it as a nation divided by mere cartographic boundaries into separate states? The idea of a nation is something that cannot be brought about just by a blue passport with the Indian sigil on it. I may not be the most patriotic person around but I think I can safely say I subscribe to the idea of a nation. One where men, women and children see themselves as Indians before they are Tamil, Marathi, Punjabi, etc.
We seem to be okay with it when a Dhoni represents the city of Chennai. But we're not okay with a Karan protecting our homes? An article I read a while back in The Hindu comes to mind. It spoke of the idea of a nation, about how European countries struggled to instill ideas such as "Le Patrie" into the minds and hearts of their people, about why it is important for a people to remain united and other such things.
So how does someone go about bringing a change? Do we just wait for the old ideas to die? Do we try to change the old ideas? Must our people undergo a whole new Renaissance in order to transform the Indian ethos? It's debate time. :)