Somehow, I find that Indians have developed a sense of "pleasure" in portraying oneself as "patriot". I have not chosen the word "portraying" instead of "being" unwittingly.
The advertisements talk about patriotism. Sports persons are talking about patriotism. Professionals are talking about patriotism. Individuals are talking about patriotism. And lastly, politicians are talking about patriotism altogether in a different scale.
As usual, I am trying to get to the bottom of the "patriotism". In one of the debates with my friends, a challenging point was raised. Is "patriotism" defined by geographical boundary ? To elaborate, if I support "India" - what is the definition of India? Is the current political map ? What happens if the political map of the nation changes - regardless if it expands or shrinks ? Do I change my "attitude" towards the "changed" boundary ? For example, let us say that there is a river dispute between Bangladesh and India. Currently it is an international issue. Suppose, Bangladedsh is merged into Indian political map - then it becomes national issue. What are the resolution options that will merge - and how does it impact the definition of "patriotism" ?
I presented the above only as a perspective. Let us put aside the whole argument above as "hypothetical" (not truly, as the situation can happen in a similar way if an Indian would immigrate to a foriegn land - should he be patriotic to "homeland" or "foreignland") because that was not the main point I wanted to share in this writing.
The advertisements - should they not sell their products by demonstrating their quality of the product ? Why should there be an attempt to portray a picture that the patriots use their product ? I am referring to a bike-ad in which a young engineer prefers to stay in India to work abroad, demonstrating his "patriotism". The other ad is to create "healthy" India by using their Soap!!!!
The sports persons/organization - Till date, I have not understood the relationship between the BCCI and India. The rules and regulations of BCCI are not restricted (or obligated to abide by) by Indian Law - the way I understand it. Basically, I could never understand why a team selected by BCCI is "called" national team. Not only that BCCI is not a government body but also that it is not affiliated to Indian Government in anyway - to the best of my limited knowledge on the subject. Quoting the statement of BCCI Counsel in Supreme Court - from a old news article : "If India plays England, it is a match played by the official team of the BCCI and not the official team of India. India as a country was not represented at the International Cricket Council (ICC) and that the Board uses its own flag ". I do not know the subsequent developments on the subject, however, this much I remember that Sachin Tendulkar removed the national flag from his Helmet at certain point of time while playing for "India". Probably, given the "impression" created from the past, the billion people believe that the cricket team they watch is "Indian National Cricket Team" and even worse, supporting their national cricket team is the best and probably the only way of showing patriotism. The next possible organization to the list is "Force India" formula 1 racing team. In my opinion, the title of the team is coined in such a way to hide the private ownership of the team by an individual but to popularize the brand, which is the major objective of the formation of the team.
The professionals - Barring select individual scientists, doctors, teachers, technocrats, management professionals, majority of the professionals take a lot of pride(read money) in working for MNC (does not matter - if in India or Abroad) than working on a mission critical government projects. The tall claim they make on their patriotism is "paying high amount of income-tax" if they work in India and "remitting US dollars to India" if they work abroad. It is pretty apparent that both are not by choice.
The individuals - For a common man, patriotism is to respect national flag, to celebrate Aug-15/Jan-26 - by being either in the viewing gallery of the parade in the stadium or at home through TV, watching "India" Cricket match and supporting/debating an Indian Win, raise/donate funds for army personnel (God only knows the authenticity and accounting of the donation collectors).
The politicians - Less is required to be said. I would be pleasantly surprised if any Indian citizen would consider any of the current leaders as "patriotic". I have not come across anyone feeling about any leader so far in my life yet.
With all above, it is clearly evident that though not serving to the country the ordinary man salutes the national flag with utmost respect, the "intelligent" section evades the responsibility they can own upto, the "glamourous" parasites use patriotism for amassing individul wealth, the "business magnets" use the name of the nation for increasing their revenue streams, the politicians use it as "means" of living (the article being stolen is the means of living for the thief - isn't it ?).
The first question remains to be answered is already done so in the title. By the very essence of the article, I am not a patriot - given that I am a professional working in a MNC!!!
The next question - if at all it comes - does not have to be answered in this writing. The question is - "so, what should I do if I have to be patriot and not just portray like a one ?". The answer is not as important as the question because the question will direct the actions that will answer the question.
Jai Ho!!! Oops...I missed a point, probably a few, .....mmm...... probably not!!!!
Jai Hind.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
I am a fundamentalist....
"fundamentalism - a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles" Islamic fundamentalism, political fundamentalism [ As quoted from online Meriam-Webster dictionary ].
Is there a problem with "fundamentalism" ? I am sure all of us will immediately say "Yes". Our chorus is as follows: "In a democratic society, there is no place for 'fundamentalism' ". Even more, when attached with "Islamic"; then there is no second thought.
May we revisit the definition of "fundamentalism" again ? - A movement or attitude ( i.e., Democracy ) stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles ( i.e., no place for fundamentalism). OOPS!!!! suddenly democracy itself became a "fundamentalism". How could we accept this paradigm ? Is it only a word game ?
Despite the evolution of mankind, the human tendency is to be quick to the principles one has accepted. We believe in what we believe - no matter what is the reality.
The first trigger of this thought sparked when I was watching a conversation in CNN. I think it was "Larry King Live". The discussion topic was "Islamic Fundamentalism". One of the participant was presenting a kind of opinion that "Biblical religion is based on tolerance. Tolerance to other streams of faith. Whereas, Islam as a religion is not based on such postulate."
My controversial mentality started the thinking. There are a few questions to be checked that was put by the conversant. Are biblical religions (Judaism and Christianity - if I would interpret them) based on tolerance ? Is Islam does not propagate tolerance ? In my own opinion, Judaism - at least the way it is interpreted by its followers - is really intimidating. To say that "a set of people" are chosen by God - does not sound an "inclusive" religion. A religion which is not inclusive cannot be tolerant. Jesus Christ - the non-christian Jew - of course was an inclusive prophet. He had said that "the kingdom of God is welcome everywhere. It is also for Romans/Peagans". Let me not get into deep arguments on this subject. I leave it to readers subjudication.
For argument sake, let us accept that biblical religions are tolerant. The counter argument is that "supposing the biblical religions are not tolerant by their nature, what would be the state of their followers ? meaning, if Bible would say that "Those who are not believing in Christ are unbelievers and killing them is not a sin rather a good thing for society and the killer" - what will be the stand by Christians. Will logic prevail and Christian fundamentalists will not promote killing of non-christians OR will we have another variety of "Jihad" ?
The paradigm of right and wrong, accusation and justification, crime and penalty are have been the fundamentals almost in all societies/religions. We all know that the definition for these are very much subjective and cannot encompass all individuals. From that perspective, everyone is a fundamentalist of his own accepted dogma.
I want to be a fundamentalist of a different kind. Not in the same sense of definition from webster. But as a person who seeks to understand the fundamentals of dogmas.
Is there a problem with "fundamentalism" ? I am sure all of us will immediately say "Yes". Our chorus is as follows: "In a democratic society, there is no place for 'fundamentalism' ". Even more, when attached with "Islamic"; then there is no second thought.
May we revisit the definition of "fundamentalism" again ? - A movement or attitude ( i.e., Democracy ) stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles ( i.e., no place for fundamentalism). OOPS!!!! suddenly democracy itself became a "fundamentalism". How could we accept this paradigm ? Is it only a word game ?
Despite the evolution of mankind, the human tendency is to be quick to the principles one has accepted. We believe in what we believe - no matter what is the reality.
The first trigger of this thought sparked when I was watching a conversation in CNN. I think it was "Larry King Live". The discussion topic was "Islamic Fundamentalism". One of the participant was presenting a kind of opinion that "Biblical religion is based on tolerance. Tolerance to other streams of faith. Whereas, Islam as a religion is not based on such postulate."
My controversial mentality started the thinking. There are a few questions to be checked that was put by the conversant. Are biblical religions (Judaism and Christianity - if I would interpret them) based on tolerance ? Is Islam does not propagate tolerance ? In my own opinion, Judaism - at least the way it is interpreted by its followers - is really intimidating. To say that "a set of people" are chosen by God - does not sound an "inclusive" religion. A religion which is not inclusive cannot be tolerant. Jesus Christ - the non-christian Jew - of course was an inclusive prophet. He had said that "the kingdom of God is welcome everywhere. It is also for Romans/Peagans". Let me not get into deep arguments on this subject. I leave it to readers subjudication.
For argument sake, let us accept that biblical religions are tolerant. The counter argument is that "supposing the biblical religions are not tolerant by their nature, what would be the state of their followers ? meaning, if Bible would say that "Those who are not believing in Christ are unbelievers and killing them is not a sin rather a good thing for society and the killer" - what will be the stand by Christians. Will logic prevail and Christian fundamentalists will not promote killing of non-christians OR will we have another variety of "Jihad" ?
The paradigm of right and wrong, accusation and justification, crime and penalty are have been the fundamentals almost in all societies/religions. We all know that the definition for these are very much subjective and cannot encompass all individuals. From that perspective, everyone is a fundamentalist of his own accepted dogma.
I want to be a fundamentalist of a different kind. Not in the same sense of definition from webster. But as a person who seeks to understand the fundamentals of dogmas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)