|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | COMMENTARY | INDIA CENTRAL | |||
|
August 21, 1998
ELECTIONS '98
|
How Readers reacted to Ashwin Mahesh's recent columns
Date sent: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 13:13:34 +1000 Hi Ashwin, Your article strikes a familiar note in my mind. I wonder if the feeling of nationalism is restricted to those of us living away. Is it perhaps a case of "the grass is greener on the other side"? But I do agree with you. India has so much to offer in terms of culture, values etc. This is something non-Indians realise faster than us Indians. What is it that makes us Indians feel the need to apologise for who we are? With just a little bit of pride in ourselves and our roots, it will not be long before India makes it to that world stage. It is in our hands, not theirs.
Date sent: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:59:20 -0700 Behind all these deja vu rhetoric lies the ulterior fascist motives of the Sangh Parivar, the same kind Hitler had dreamt about. The motive is to build up a pan-Indian ONE culture. For many millennia, Indians lived side by side in harmony, and I repeat HARMONY without sacrificing their identities. They never thought that retaining one's own cultures (and in someone else's rhetoric may be idiosyncracy) does preclude harbouring hatred or ignominy about their neighbour's, they never failed to appreciate and internalise those of the neighbour's. Why does it become necessary now at the fag end of the 20th century to think of one single culture for one's nation-state? The sanctimony of nation-state concept is now under question. Its justifications are weak, and now we are bombarded with these ONENESS theories. We know how Pakistan and Bangladesh have effectively become culturally fascist. Bangladesh is potentially more fascist than Pakistan, because of its professed HOMOGENEITY. Homogenous societies are inherently fascist, simply because there is no tangible and realistic resource for tolerance and mutual appreciation. The knowledge pool keeps shrinking because of lack of exposure. In this age when societies and civilisations are flourishing with more and more exposure and interaction, those are languishing which are closing on themselves. The case of Hindi language is a pointer. The Hindi literature is not producing a single literary magazine popular across even North India. The literature and the language is now falling far behind, in terms of development, the other regional languages and literatures. All this has happened after the endeavour of imposition of Hindi as a "national language". Instead of letting that language and literature develop on its own, the "political masters" killed it with their agenda. India flourished and is flourishing at an immense rate because of her diversity in culture and thoughts. Let us keep the garden blooming with hundreds of species of flowers, that makes an interesting bouquet!
Date sent: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 22:20:15 -0500 Ashwin Mahesh's recent article was simply touching. As India rides a wave of post-Pokhran euphoria, the literati is finally beginning to discover the fact that the middle-class India always had nationalistic optimists. This feeling of Indianness, of quiet nationalism, was best exemplified in A R Rahman's Vande Mataram. I don't want to glorify Mr Rahman, but the truth remains, on August 15th last year, it took a Maa Tujhe Salaam to revive this sentiment among the rest of India. But it is always comforting to know that people like Ashwin Mahesh always had this sentiment locked up in their hearts. Incidentally, I do not agree with Mr Mahesh's assertion that Mera Bharat Mahan should be the rallying cry for Indian nationalism. I feel that it represents an almost ethnocentric, east-or-west-India-is-the-best, genre of Indianness. The kind that is illustrated in Bollywood movies like Pardes, movies that go around preaching "Hindustani-Sabhyata-tells-us-to-do-this-and-that', at the same time ignorantly pronouncing all things American as evil. The type of Indianness I'd be proud to display is the Vande Mataram-kind. The fierce albeit open-minded patriotism that explodes from the words Maa Tujhe Salaam. The quiet nationalism that Mr Mahesh alluded to in his article. The sentiment that every Indian feels when he sees our cricket team winning or our scientific establishment succeeding. Besides, Maa tujhe Salaam does have a kind of 90's ring to it, doesn't it? :) Anshul Haldipur
Date sent: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 09:12:46 +0530 Utter tripe! In the last 5,000 years of our "glorious" civilisation we have never been a nation, let alone have a national character. There is nothing in our ethos today to point to such a thing ever happening in our lifetime -- we are too lazy, selfish and chauvinistic to let such thoughts take hold.
TB
Date sent: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 19:48:39 -0700 Ashwin: Call me an optimist, but we are almost there. That sense of a pan-Indian identity is just lurking in the shadows, waiting to come out. We WILL be on that world stage my friend (and how!) before too long. Kris Chandrasekar
Date sent: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 18:46:03 -0400 The article was one with nationalistic spirit. The thought crosses many an Indian mind, at least it did mine. We are in all essence representatives of India and it is through all of us that Indianness spreads. Mohan
Date sent: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 18:24:37 PDT Yes, I too long for the day when India finally forges its national identity and all Indians can appreciate the nation's accomplishments and can come together to build a better India -- an India unafraid to assert itself and no longer pessimistic about its ability to overcome its problems. I enjoy your columns. Keep it up, bhai. Jaideep Singh
Date sent: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:40:56 -0400 Ashwin: The new world order is democratisation of everything -- economics, technology, health, and even citizenship. I mean by "democratisation" an indiscriminate right to live, work and thrive, ANYWHERE in the world. The trends in the increase of "international Indians" or the free-market principles that are opening up countries -- creating jobs and wealth -- are examples to the democratisation of the world. Recognising the importance of a global citizen, many countries have opened up their citizenship rules to have their citizens "share" their allegiance to one or more countries. Why should not India do it too?? Please explain in a column why you think the IIndian government should allow dual-citizenship. I will be very obliged to be of any assistance to you in this matter, because many of my fellow nationals do not understand this concept. I will be happy to receive your reply. Pramod
Date sent: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 21:15:03 -0700 Dear Ashwin, I fail to understand what is your motivation in criticising the government simply because it tried to facilitate the activities of people who are interested in investing in India. Why would anybody actually not want money to be invested into their economy? I completely sympathise with your concerns about the kind of people to which the facility of a NRI card is being extended. But that doesn't mean the facility itself is deplorable. There are many Indians who have or want to obtain the citizenship of a Western country. In doing so, they have clearly linked their future into these countries possibly for purely selfish reasons. They primarily owe their allegiance to their new country. But they still continue to have some feeling for India. May be not as much as for their new country but second only to that. The NRI card will allow them to express that feeling even when they have renounced their Indian citizenship 'for their selfish reason'. I think you should focus your energies on helping refine the requirements for that NRI card, not on getting that card completely abolished. Ashutosh Barve, M D
Date sent: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 11:34:55 +1000 Dear Editor/Ashwin, I myself am a so-called "NRI" and here are my comments on the issue. I strongly agree with Ashwin that the NRI status should be abolished. When a person goes out of India, he is an Indian citizen but living outside his country. The status of his visa should not matter (green card, permanent resident, work-permit, tourist, business etc.. His passport is Indian, and for all purposes he is still an Indian. He has no voting rights in the country of his residence and has no rights as a citizen of that country, simply because he is exactly that, he is not a "Citizen". Once this person becomes eligible for citizenship of the country of residence, some change over the citizenship, while some remain Indian citizens. Once he relinquishes Indian citizenship, he is no longer a citizen of India and hence cannot be labelled NRI or anything else that even suggests that he is an Indian, because he is not. He will always remain a person who originated in India, that is all. For all practical purposes, he should be treated as a foreign citizen and should not have any special rights. Except, maybe, some relaxed rules of visa (as he might want to visit his family in India on a regular basis). "Love for the country", "Indian at heart" and other such factors may be true in case of this person, but these are emotive issues and should bear no influence on his status as a foreigner. What I am getting down to is "A person is either an Indian or not". He cannot be anything "in-between". Having a category called NRIs (in its present definition) is definitely not correct. A person who originates in India but is a resident of another country and loves his country very much may choose to remain an Indian citizen. If he accepts the citizenship of the other country, (for convenience, status symbol or for any other reason), obviously, he does not love India as deeply as he says or thinks. I know many people living here of the second category (Indian origin but now Australian citizens) and know a few people who have been in Australia for more than two decades, but are still Indians. I consider them as "true" NRIs not the Aussies who were once Indians. Someone needed to speak up on this, Ashwin has.... to use an Aussie term "Good on ya Ashwin". I fully support your view. In the letter above, I have used "he"/"him" pedantically. It encompasses he/she, him/her. Thanks, Ashutosh Kapse A true NRI
Date sent: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 06:59:53 -0400 I read this piece by Mr Mahesh, and the article by Saisuresh Sivaswamy that is referred to inside, and realised that they somehow seemed to expect the people referred to as NRIs to "help" India. Is the understanding here that NRIs should provide aid, rather than investment? If so, it's a novel concept. Indians living in India don't lift a finger to help their country, but somehow those who have left to seek their fortunes elsewhere are burdened with this duty. I still have affection for India as the place where I was raised, but the country I bear allegiance to now is the US -- and yes, I believe the two statements are not contradictory. If India wants anyone (not just NRIs) to invest in it, it should clean up its act, get rid of corruption and inefficiency, and try and convince others that it has a viable business climate. Otherwise, when it criticises people for not helping it, it comes across as being no better than the beggars on its streets -- and in India, especially, who cares for the criticisms from beggars? Sunil |
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT
INFOTECH | TRAVEL | LIFE/STYLE | FREEDOM | FEEDBACK |
|