The Rediff Special/K R Narayanan
'What is obstructing the the emotional integration of India is the atomisation of our society into numerous castes, sub-castes and tribes
The problems of regionalism and linguism and of the relations between the Centre and the states are important factors affecting
the unity of the country. I do not propose to discuss them here,
as there have been recently very detailed discussions in the country
on these issues. I think that great and difficult as these problems
are, they are not likely to lead to the splintering of India.
I believe that the facts of geography, culture and the compulsions
of economic development will in course of time blunt the edge
of these differences. It is possible that even the apparently
fundamental ideological differences prevailing in politics will
be digested and accommodated through the historic genius of India
to bring about a co-existence of opposites.
As regards the language
question unless the fanatics of Hindi try to push it down the throats
of others, it is not likely to affect adversely the unity of India
in any fundamental manner. There is, however, no doubt that greater
linguistic tolerance and patience and a more realistic appreciation
of English as a working all-India language will contribute to
the climate of unity in the country.
I should like to add a word
on the question of Centre-state relations which have been under
strain and on the demand for decentralisation of federal power.
While decentralisation is desirable, to concede it in any big
way to the present giant-sized states might not be in the interests
of the unity of the country. While it may help economic development
in the states, socially its consequences could be retrogressive.
The lower you go on the scale of India's social and political
system, the more enormous and obstinate are the inequalities and
injustices that prevail. Therefore, decentralisation without radical
socio-economic reforms and changes and without redrawing the federal
map of India say into fifty odd states, might spell less unity
and more dissensions.
What is obstructing the unity and the emotional integration of
India is not so much the larger divisions into regions, languages
and religions, but the atomisation of our society into numerous
castes, sub-castes and tribes.The process of modernisation and
democracy launched since Independence has had the effect of accentuating
all these differences.
A well known sociologist Clifford Geertz
has argued that modernisation quickens the primordial sentiments
and attachments in society and that it was important that intellectuals
and politicians saw these as a sign of the modernising process
and not as a throwback into barbarism. Geertz also argued that
'an increasing degree of national unity is maintained not by calls
of blood and land but by vague, intermittent and routine allegiances
to a civil State supported by governmental use of police power
and ideological exhortation.'
This method is not unknown
to us in India. It was part of the Nehru technique of ruling through
an audacious use of legislative power, a judicious use of police
power and a ceaseless torrent of exhortation. One disappointing
feature of our current society is that 'the routine allegiances'
to the civil State have become loose and slender and exhortation
has been robbed of much of its convincing appeal.
In such circumstances it is no consolation to be told that the
resurgence of primordial and traditional feelings and attachments
in society is part of the modernisation phenomenon. Unless civil
politics is able to tame and control these primitive forces, social
explosions will be inevitable, especially in a country like India.
Tell us what you think of this opinion
|
