INDIA- WHY NATIONAL CHARACTER MATTERS
Neil Kulkarni: INDIA- WHY NATIONAL CHARACTER MATTERS
http://neilkulkarniblog.blogspot.ca/2013/04/17 India-why-national-character-matters.html
India. Bewitching and frustrating, dynamic and static, systematic and disorganised, brilliant and banal. In short, India is a nesting ground for the coexistence of contradictions. Or are these contradictions only at the surface? Somewhere, do the seemingly incongruous realities of India, each of which has an undeniable part to play in forming a harmonious whole, meet? Or fuse together?
I have no answer. But I hope you get the drift. Let us consider some examples.
First, let us take politics, which, like cricket and films, is a formidable unifying as well as divisive force in this country. Indians, myself included, often complain. “What democracy?” “Ours is a banana republic.” “Those with contacts go unscathed too often.”
However, though there may be some veracity in the complaints of frustrated citizens, the fact remains that India is very much a democracy. Ramachandra Guha has written that India is approximately fifty percent democratic and eighty percent united. I find in the writings of this outstanding historian more than a speck of truth. If we accept that India is fifty percent democratic, it follows that though miles away from a model state, India is not a disintegrated, hopelessly fragmented and antagonistic bunch of perpetually warring states, each too small, too dependent to lead an isolated existence. And if anything, we should be thankful that the worst did not happen.
After independence, there arose several occasions on which international observers and correspondents, skeptical as they were, raised questions about the survival of Indian democracy. Doubts were also raised about the survival of India as a nation-state. But the Republic has weathered these storms, and it appears that most citizens have totally accepted India’s democratic institutions, defective though they are.
Of course, this acceptance does not mean passivity. The Anna Hazare-led movement for a Lokpal Bill drew the masses out of their torpor. The brutal gang-rape of a young woman in Delhi saw an unprecedented manifestation of collective rage, impotent though it was. Collectively, though, that rage, far from remaining helpless, became tremendously potent and led the government to change the status quo, though not very radically.
In addition, though illiberal tendencies repeatedly come to the fore in politics (consider the arrest of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi for the offence of ‘sedition’, an archaic statute of our antiquated lawbooks); there is an acceptance of criticism. The cartoonist R. K. Laxman, who started his career before independence, thrived for nearly sixty years in association with The Times of India, and drew daily for the paper till 2003; his long career interrupted by India’s experiment with authoritarian rule, the Emergency. Surely a cartoonist as direct and sardonic as Laxman would not have blossomed in regimes like China, the former USSR or Egypt.
To take one more example, in spite of the obvious flaws in India’s Public Distribution System (PDS), food distribution has remained steady enough to prevent famine in India. For seventy years, since the tragic Bengal famine of 1943, no mass starvation has been reported to happen. And though starvation deaths are sometimes reported and a large proportion of children are malnourished, the situation is still a whole lot better, and more encouraging, than at independence. Food security has been achieved in foodgrains, and agricultural imports now comprise a much smaller proportion of our total imports than in the 1960’s, when India lived ‘from shipload to shipload’ of imported wheat from the United States, under the constant threat of a famine.
Now, consider poverty, a social fact in India, which is far from being eradicated. What is encouraging is that since 1991, there has been a decline in the absolute number of poor in India, despite a significant growth in population. Of course, the definition of a ‘poor’ person has come under fire, but it can be said with some certitude that on an average, the socio-economic conditions of the Indian populace have noticeably improved over the last two decades. The poverty ratio, however, has not declined with the same rapidity as in China, South Korea, Indonesia or sub-Saharan Africa. The population is not an excuse in this matter, though the scale of poverty alleviation schemes must be greater. But then, one should ask the question: why is poverty eradication in India taking time?
I will propose here not an answer as such, but an explanation. The Indian poor have NEVER revolted violently. They have lived their lives with immense fortitude, braving life’s ups and downs, withstanding its blows. After 1947, with the breaking up of old social norms, they have become more assertive. They will not be duped as easily as they once were. They now stand up for their rights, as the burden of their identity based on accident of birth has now practically disappeared. (A disproportionately high percentage of poor belonged, and still belong, to socially marginalised communities: Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.) But they have practically NEVER taken to arms, very unlike the poor in, say, Russia or France.
That may be either out of fear of vengeance by the rich; out of acceptance of life’s circumstances, no matter how good or bad they may be (we call it fatalism); or out of faith and conviction, that one day their lot will be better off (irrational faith); or out of aversion to violence (fearing the consequences). Could there be any other reason? I do not know. I intend to write more in this regard in future.
But whatever the reason may be, one cannot deny that the pacifism of the poor has lent Indian society a certain stability. The poor have also been rewarded for their patience, as Indians have seen in the last two decades. The benefit to the poor (poverty alleviation) might be accruing slowly, but things are moving. Indian society is not going backward. Nor is it static, although to those impatient for change/revolution it may seem static.
Even the poor, though they may not be getting materially better off in the short run, live in contentment.
Indeed, we often observe that the rich in India, especially in the post-liberalisation period, desire for more and more materially; indeed, the more we get, the more we seem to want. Our seemingly insatiable desire for wealth has never yet been quenched, nor is it ever likely to be, given the psychological chain of desires with its origin in the wavering, weak human mind, which only gets weaker when money or material success is involved.
On the contrary, the poor seem to be making the best of what they have. They may not be financially successful, but adversity makes them stronger. Adversity increases their desire for their betterment. We have a lot to learn from them. Further, some poor people have totally accepted their lot and are living life with what they have, contentedly at that. Such an attitude my not help them get very far in life, but it certainly helps to look at the bright side of situations. Perhaps the better-off in India have plenty to learn from those who have conquered or accepted adversity.
In conclusion, what constitutes the spirit of India? Does the acceptance of imperfections define India? Perhaps.
It would be appropriate to end by mentioning the Hofstede Model, constructed by the Dutch anthropologist Geert Hofstede, to look into national and organisational-level cultural differences. The Hofstede survey ranks entities on five parameters: Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance and Long-term Orientation. The outcomes reveal that India scores weak on uncertainty avoidance and high on long-term orientation, unlike many Western nations, which score strong on uncertainty avoidance and low on long-term orientation.
These two traits of Indian society as a whole, that is; first, its acceptance of uncertainties and imperfections: and second, its emphasis on distant rewards rather than instant gratification, do hold good, excluding individual exceptions, of course. And these traits have the potential to give great strength to Indians as a people.
From these traits we can develop sustainability and disaster management, both of which are likely to be critical preconditions to lasting satisfaction and the long-term amelioration of humanity.
India, if it can draw into its distinctive national character, has a lot to offer the comity of nations, a lot more than it is bringing to the table today. And if not in our lifetimes, then in a few generations, the dreams that we hold for this country and the world can be realised.
Let us pour our life-blood into achieving our potential, in the process bettering conditions for India, humanity and the planet!
http://neilkulkarniblog.blogspot.ca/2013/04/17 India-why-national-character-matters.html
India. Bewitching and frustrating, dynamic and static, systematic and disorganised, brilliant and banal. In short, India is a nesting ground for the coexistence of contradictions. Or are these contradictions only at the surface? Somewhere, do the seemingly incongruous realities of India, each of which has an undeniable part to play in forming a harmonious whole, meet? Or fuse together?
I have no answer. But I hope you get the drift. Let us consider some examples.
First, let us take politics, which, like cricket and films, is a formidable unifying as well as divisive force in this country. Indians, myself included, often complain. “What democracy?” “Ours is a banana republic.” “Those with contacts go unscathed too often.”
However, though there may be some veracity in the complaints of frustrated citizens, the fact remains that India is very much a democracy. Ramachandra Guha has written that India is approximately fifty percent democratic and eighty percent united. I find in the writings of this outstanding historian more than a speck of truth. If we accept that India is fifty percent democratic, it follows that though miles away from a model state, India is not a disintegrated, hopelessly fragmented and antagonistic bunch of perpetually warring states, each too small, too dependent to lead an isolated existence. And if anything, we should be thankful that the worst did not happen.
After independence, there arose several occasions on which international observers and correspondents, skeptical as they were, raised questions about the survival of Indian democracy. Doubts were also raised about the survival of India as a nation-state. But the Republic has weathered these storms, and it appears that most citizens have totally accepted India’s democratic institutions, defective though they are.
Of course, this acceptance does not mean passivity. The Anna Hazare-led movement for a Lokpal Bill drew the masses out of their torpor. The brutal gang-rape of a young woman in Delhi saw an unprecedented manifestation of collective rage, impotent though it was. Collectively, though, that rage, far from remaining helpless, became tremendously potent and led the government to change the status quo, though not very radically.
In addition, though illiberal tendencies repeatedly come to the fore in politics (consider the arrest of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi for the offence of ‘sedition’, an archaic statute of our antiquated lawbooks); there is an acceptance of criticism. The cartoonist R. K. Laxman, who started his career before independence, thrived for nearly sixty years in association with The Times of India, and drew daily for the paper till 2003; his long career interrupted by India’s experiment with authoritarian rule, the Emergency. Surely a cartoonist as direct and sardonic as Laxman would not have blossomed in regimes like China, the former USSR or Egypt.
To take one more example, in spite of the obvious flaws in India’s Public Distribution System (PDS), food distribution has remained steady enough to prevent famine in India. For seventy years, since the tragic Bengal famine of 1943, no mass starvation has been reported to happen. And though starvation deaths are sometimes reported and a large proportion of children are malnourished, the situation is still a whole lot better, and more encouraging, than at independence. Food security has been achieved in foodgrains, and agricultural imports now comprise a much smaller proportion of our total imports than in the 1960’s, when India lived ‘from shipload to shipload’ of imported wheat from the United States, under the constant threat of a famine.
Now, consider poverty, a social fact in India, which is far from being eradicated. What is encouraging is that since 1991, there has been a decline in the absolute number of poor in India, despite a significant growth in population. Of course, the definition of a ‘poor’ person has come under fire, but it can be said with some certitude that on an average, the socio-economic conditions of the Indian populace have noticeably improved over the last two decades. The poverty ratio, however, has not declined with the same rapidity as in China, South Korea, Indonesia or sub-Saharan Africa. The population is not an excuse in this matter, though the scale of poverty alleviation schemes must be greater. But then, one should ask the question: why is poverty eradication in India taking time?
I will propose here not an answer as such, but an explanation. The Indian poor have NEVER revolted violently. They have lived their lives with immense fortitude, braving life’s ups and downs, withstanding its blows. After 1947, with the breaking up of old social norms, they have become more assertive. They will not be duped as easily as they once were. They now stand up for their rights, as the burden of their identity based on accident of birth has now practically disappeared. (A disproportionately high percentage of poor belonged, and still belong, to socially marginalised communities: Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.) But they have practically NEVER taken to arms, very unlike the poor in, say, Russia or France.
That may be either out of fear of vengeance by the rich; out of acceptance of life’s circumstances, no matter how good or bad they may be (we call it fatalism); or out of faith and conviction, that one day their lot will be better off (irrational faith); or out of aversion to violence (fearing the consequences). Could there be any other reason? I do not know. I intend to write more in this regard in future.
But whatever the reason may be, one cannot deny that the pacifism of the poor has lent Indian society a certain stability. The poor have also been rewarded for their patience, as Indians have seen in the last two decades. The benefit to the poor (poverty alleviation) might be accruing slowly, but things are moving. Indian society is not going backward. Nor is it static, although to those impatient for change/revolution it may seem static.
Even the poor, though they may not be getting materially better off in the short run, live in contentment.
Indeed, we often observe that the rich in India, especially in the post-liberalisation period, desire for more and more materially; indeed, the more we get, the more we seem to want. Our seemingly insatiable desire for wealth has never yet been quenched, nor is it ever likely to be, given the psychological chain of desires with its origin in the wavering, weak human mind, which only gets weaker when money or material success is involved.
On the contrary, the poor seem to be making the best of what they have. They may not be financially successful, but adversity makes them stronger. Adversity increases their desire for their betterment. We have a lot to learn from them. Further, some poor people have totally accepted their lot and are living life with what they have, contentedly at that. Such an attitude my not help them get very far in life, but it certainly helps to look at the bright side of situations. Perhaps the better-off in India have plenty to learn from those who have conquered or accepted adversity.
In conclusion, what constitutes the spirit of India? Does the acceptance of imperfections define India? Perhaps.
It would be appropriate to end by mentioning the Hofstede Model, constructed by the Dutch anthropologist Geert Hofstede, to look into national and organisational-level cultural differences. The Hofstede survey ranks entities on five parameters: Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance and Long-term Orientation. The outcomes reveal that India scores weak on uncertainty avoidance and high on long-term orientation, unlike many Western nations, which score strong on uncertainty avoidance and low on long-term orientation.
These two traits of Indian society as a whole, that is; first, its acceptance of uncertainties and imperfections: and second, its emphasis on distant rewards rather than instant gratification, do hold good, excluding individual exceptions, of course. And these traits have the potential to give great strength to Indians as a people.
From these traits we can develop sustainability and disaster management, both of which are likely to be critical preconditions to lasting satisfaction and the long-term amelioration of humanity.
India, if it can draw into its distinctive national character, has a lot to offer the comity of nations, a lot more than it is bringing to the table today. And if not in our lifetimes, then in a few generations, the dreams that we hold for this country and the world can be realised.
Let us pour our life-blood into achieving our potential, in the process bettering conditions for India, humanity and the planet!
Labels: Hindu organizations, India
posted by Unknown at
11:20 PM
|
0 Comments
