Increasingly
I have come to believe that it is only a war which builds a nation in today’s
times. There have been historic societies where people have lived in small
conglomerates for many years. The ruling units have varied – in some places,
they have been actively governed by a feudal lord or a prince of a state. In others
local governance has prevailed, and the only contribution of the people with
the sovereign has been to pay taxes. Local governance and decision making of
what needs to be done with local resources, or local justice was to be
administered. In these communities there were many kinds of transgressions –
sins of commission and omissions, for what was not done was also as important
as what was done.
There were relatively fewer places where a sovereign ruled
and the people were wealthy. While India has been touted as a rich country
plundered by the British over 500 years ago, perhaps a truer version would be
describing it as a country with rich rulers and poor subjects. The system of
payment of taxes as well as plunder and expansion to garner additional wealth
was an effective one to ensure the wealth of the state or tiny states spread
across the land. In situations where some of this wealth was ploughed back into
the country into investments in roads, canals, houses, there was more equitable
distribution of wealth. But there were all kinds of kings as well – many were
not bothered to reinvest the wealth in such a manner, and had significant
hoardes.
These two systems of reign which was prevalent in
various parts of the world through the centuries. In some areas, the kings
ruled over significantly larger portions of land than otherwise, leading to a
larger state. However, the representation of the sovereign was always through
taxation rather than governance. Norms of social conduct – be it the family or
relations between neighbours or livelihoods were always localised.
It was the war which really changed this social fabric.
Suddenly people from various parts of the country were called for a similar
task and their families were all thrust into a similar plight. It equalised
chances of survival and became the only priority – in the face of which all
other differences needed to be forgotten. Even if caste, class, and community
lines remained imprinted, there was another common identity that everyone could
wear – that of having belonged to the horrors of a war. There are countries
where this war has been external fighting against enemies, whereas in others,
it has been an internal battle in the face of a revolution. What it most
certainly did is to establish new equitable identities for all. With a common
identity a nation could be born.
In India, there was neither a revolution nor a war. The fight
against independence was indeed in pockets though it roused many sentiments.
Further, since a large chunk of the movement was non-violent, and led by
specific leaders, it did not require the acquisiton of newer identities in any
way. People simply supported the movement led by a select few, a feat
impossible on the battleground, where the only support possible is through the
sacrifice of life and health. Thus there was never a scope for any newer
identities to be created in this ancient land, replete with strong and distinct
communities. A state was formed, and was also given power, but the vast
majority were not involved in either the formation or the grant of power.
This
meant that even 60 years after its formation, the acceptance of the state is
limited. Further, in the lines of any modern democracy, the state also chose to
uphold the defense of the private and the local, without having any legitimacy
to do so. Needless to say, most such attempts of changing the social fabric
have been rather unsuccessful. At the same time, the nature of the modern state
is quite different from its predecessors who simply wanted to accumulate wealth
and land. The state is also responsible for maintaining economic independence
and the judicious usage of the resources of the land rests with them. This is highly
difficult to implement in a scenario where the social fabric does not accept
the complete sovereignty of its existence. Hence, implementation of any
decision requires the support of the local power structure – be it landlords or
the merchants, people with muscle or money. Without their support, the state
would fail in its mission to utilize local resources. Enlisting their support
means that it is perceived as an agent of existing power structures. In the
absence of any new identity that the state provides, traditional identities
remain relevant, and the state simply morphs to represent the powerful among them.
Wishing for war is a horrifying thought, even given its
importance in building a nation. In the absence of war, we must realise that
our notion of our country is false, isn’t embedded in the realities for the
majority of its people. Thus, all battles are localised, and our fights too
must be. Only a local uprising against existing messiahs of power, with the
people, unites them and gives them a different identity to transcend their
traditional differences. Only then is development owned by the people. India will
never be a nation, but can perhaps become a land of a multitude of mini
nations, governed equitably.
P.S - Giant multinationals, some larger than countries in
their influence and financial muscle are certainly an anathema to this
principle. However a network of strong small and middle sized entrepreneurs can
definitely reduce their significance in many important areas of everyday life.
Even today, it is such strength which has buffered our country against the
vagaries of economic slowdowns and global turmoil. It can definitely be
strengthened, and developed further to counter the terror of unbridled capital,
which is singularly responsible for most of the economic woes of the last
century.
