Individuals, Identities and Nations

 

We are all many things. Remember your identity card from school. Or your Aadhaar card that you so preciously treasure. Every entry therein is your identity. You might be Anthony Gonsalves. You might be an American. You might be a Mumbaikar. You might be a Rajasthani. You might be a Sikh. You might be a bhakt of Shiva. You might be a member (or a patron) of the BJP. You might be a woman. You might be the son of your father. You might be a plumber, a homosexual, a feminist, an environmentalist, a proud introvert, and whatnot. All these things form our identity.

What do you tell yourself when your conscience asks you “Who are you?”

The Individual and his Identity

The identity you “choose” for yourself is a determinant of the situation. It also entails that identity is subject to change. I might identify as a Mumbai Indians fan today but shift to Knight Riders tomorrow. Similar change can occur in the general hierarchy of such identity. What matters more to me, my being a German in Hitler's reich or my being a responsible, moral teacher? I might be a patriot in one case but when my own country starts killing off its own citizens, my moral self will be torn apart.

Francis Fukuyama, in his book Identity: Contemporary Identity Politics and the Struggle for Recognition, presents a detailed (but brief) analysis of this quagmire. He takes us back to the times of Socrates when he told his pupil that there is a part of the soul, the thymos, that demands worth. It is this self-worth, i.e., the value that you put to yourself, that the world is running after. Hegel presents modern history as a struggle for dignity. When groups compete against one another, it is not only for their rightful piece of the economic cake, but also for gaining their dignity in the eye of the society. This dignity is the driver of identity politics.

Group identity

Group identities themselves were a result of the individualism of the times of the Enlightenment. It was at that time, as Fukuyama explains, that the individual first began finding his “inner self” as being different from what the society wanted him or her to be. The struggle for recognition and expression of this “inner self” materialized in the political rights of this period, reflected in the American Declaration of Independence (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”) and the French Revolution (Liberty, Equality and Fraternity).

In the social domain, this individualism, determined by dignity for the self, was to lead to the rise of group identities which had so long been suppressed. People took pride in their culture and demanded equal status not only for their individual self, but also for the group that they belonged to. The caretakers of Europe suppressed these identities all through the “extended 19th century” (up till the outbreak of the First World War in 1914), leading ultimately to chaos.

The Indian case

Even when Fukuyama focuses little on the Indian condition (and it is ugly because India constitutes a model for all the identity dynamics that plague the globe), it is understood that the tragedy of the Partition was a direct result of identity politics. It was here that the differences came out in the most hostile manner, ravaging the social fabric for time immemorial.

Today more than ever, these identities have gained all their lost ground. Jinnah had apprehensions about the future of Muslims in India. The Hindu nationalists of modern India only inadvertently prove him right. When the work should focus on building consensus and security, focusing on righting the wrongs of history and driving towards the dream of a future unification of South Asia, identity politics takes not only the nations away from one another but also person from person.

Global scenario

These are the times of polarization. Nations have divided within and fissures very easily pop out into the open. World over, the rights of the individual are in clash with a renewed discovery and adoption of a group identity. Even as Joe Biden takes over the presidency, America hardly stops being “Trump’s America” of widespread racism and sexism, backed by a (misplaced and misunderstood) sense of Americanism and White supremacy. Near home, Pakistan struggles with a revitalized Islamism and Sri Lanka sees a reasserting Sinhalese nationalism. Nepal heads towards Hindu nationalism. Sikh nationalism seems also to have made a comeback in India.

Women are still demanding for equal remuneration for equal work. When, explains Fukuyama, even in the topmost managerial positions, a woman is not given the same salary as a man, it is not that salary will bring about betterment in the living condition of the woman but that equality in remuneration is a marker of dignity. Unequal salary for equal work is a symbol of inferiority.

Similarly, the movement for LGBT rights gains fuel with the similar demand of a status (and hence, dignity) equal to the heterosexuals in terms of equality in marriage and inheritance.

A culture of what?

What single identity can we then agree on to hold us together? It is the Constitution that we must adhere to. Who should be a citizen of India? Any person who can abide by the philosophy of the Constitution, by the principles of social and political democracy, by the principle of co-existence and a heterogenous culture, who places the betterment of all as equal to the betterment of their own, qualifies for this. It is a constitutional culture that we require desperately.

Thus spoke BR Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly:

Constitutional morality [a popular culture that respects the ideals of the Constitution] is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realize that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic.

A national culture thus needs to be created and such a culture, while drawing from the diversities that pervade this land, must be based on a mutual respect for all identities, be it those of an individual or a group. Once such a mentality has been achieved and anything different is not by default considered wrong and absurd, the subject of group will be overtaken by the subject of the nation. Democracy and equality of opportunity will then be true. This is a faraway dream, and that is precisely why nation-building is a process that will continue.