The
Indians – Portrait of a People
Sudhir
Kakar & Katharina Kakar
Penguin
Books, Published in 2007
What makes this diverse
congregation, this desperate assembly of people into calling themselves
Indians? Our erstwhile colonialists
would take some credit for constructing this identity by their geographical
unification of this huge landmass into a nation, perhaps for the first time in
our history. Beyond the political
constructs of ‘state’, ‘nation’ and the concomitant arousal of passions of
‘nationalism’, are there stray sociological strings which tie and knot our
people to form a unique pattern and design?
Could we march further from the much touted ‘mozaic of cultures’ to
discover one overwhelming design which units us all? The larger and bigger question perhaps is,
are we to understand our relationship to the territory we inhabit and the
institutions of state in the western linear sense of something borne out of
assuming another identity for the sake of establishing this bonding (a
Leviathan which has come into existence for this purpose) or are there unique
features which deviates or departs from the western model?
These were some of the questions
which arise in our minds even before opening this book. Sudhir and Katharina Kakar provide some
answers to these questions. In the
opinion of the authors, the building blocks of Indianness are: an ideology of family and other crucial
relationships that derives from the institution of the joint family; a view of
social relations profoundly influenced by the institution of caste; an image of
the human body and bodily process that is based on the medical system of
Ayurveda; and a cultural imagination teeming with shared myths and legends,
especially from the epics Ramayana and Mahabharata, that
underscore a ‘romantic’ vision of human life and a relativist,
context-dependent way of thinking.
Young and modern Indians would
finds references to joint family and caste relationships as crucial components
of Indianness quite disquieting, but these two institutions still remain
crucial factors in defining the personal identity of a large mass of
Indians. The authors do concede the fact
that Indian identity has not remained a constant, fixed and unchanging through
the march of history. As they put it,
Indic civilization has been in constant ferment through its encounters with
Islam and European civilizations, but had not only that inherent capacity to
absorb and assimilate these influences but be proud of such inheritance!
What makes our ‘family’ an
inherent part of our selves even in modern times? In the view of the authors, the institution
of family has continued to discharge its function as a ‘fall back’ tool for
Indians in times of need. Such a
continuous reliance on family also adversely reflects our lack of faith in the
effectiveness of modern institutions of state.
In the absence of effective institutions of state, achievements of
individuals are still seen as achievements of the family rather than that of
the Institutions or of those individuals.
Caste is another social
institution unique to India and is of enormous influence. The Kakars hold that the organising principle
of caste system is the notion of ‘pollution’ and ‘impurity’ and they cite Alan
Dndes’ postulate about association of these notions with faeces, instilled by
the Hindu cultures toilet training. The
Kakars go on to deny this association, but it is important considering the fact
that such ‘impure’ jobs are still being performed by the so called
‘untouchables’.
Between the two, caste and
family, which one pulls a modern Indian towards it more? The authors note that for an increasing tribe
of professions, civil servants, managers and others, it is easier to repudiate
their caste than shed their responsibilities to their families, given the moral
stigma attached to family obligations.
There is riveting discussion about the innate preference of a son in
Indian families, discrimination built against daughters, their careful ‘nurturing’,
the role of mother in-law in monitoring the functions of a daughter in-law in
the new family and especially in preventing any kind of attachment and
tenderness to develop between the son and the new entrant. But by far the most fascinating discussion is
about the ‘love’ versus ‘arranged’ marriage and why love marriages are
perceived to be so upsetting to the psyche of an Indian.
Even with the express inhibition,
if not prohibition against love marriage, why does ‘love’ hold such a
fascination to the Indian mind? The
elaborate answer given by the authors need to reproduced in full: “Love and the lyrical impulse of its
narration are indeed universal, one of the few constants left in a world that
makes a fetish of cultural relativism.
Erotic passion, with love’s tender discoveries, sudden torments and
consuming desires, is one of the last bastions of our common humanity. In India, as in most other cultures through
history, the love story has never been a reflection but a subverter of the
accepted mores prescribing the relations between the sexes. The pleasure we take in this subversion is
one of the many enduring fascinations of the love story which is a vehicle for
the vicarious satisfaction of our hidden desires and obscure longings. The love story, whether in movies or fiction,
is the dream of capturing love’s freshness and spontaneity free of all social
restrictions and internal inhibitions and of becoming one with the beloved
while overwhelming the forces that would dampen desire and the urge to
merge.” Perhaps, the Kakars provide the
direction which the fast-changing Indian world must traverse, if it is to find
fulfilment.
It is difficult to agree with the
authors’ view that a belief in the curative potential of Ayurveda holds any
fascination for the Indian mind, considering the poor state of research efforts
being put into this system of medicine and the inability of its practioners to
build an effective cadre of medical professionals. More than health, a fuller discussion on our
food habits would have been useful considering the fact that our culinary
practices exhibit more commonality.
The greatest cliché about this country is our
supposed ‘spiritualism’. In contrast to
other people, we are supposed to lead more spiritual lives and place more
reliance on the non-worldly quotient than the crude obsession with materialist
possession. The discussion on religion
and spiritual lives of Indians brings out the fact that we are as much prone to
materialist longings as others. One
breed of this unholy nexus between the
spiritual and material is the ‘flexible Hindu’ who combines the opportunity
presented by material benefits to explore other ‘spiritual byways’. Such characters are aplenty and they hog the
headlines in the newspapers for all the wrong reasons.
No discussion of Indianness would
be complete without delving into the question of religious differences,
especially Hindu-Muslim relationship, which has bedevilled the country for so
long with disastrous consequences. Quite
unlike others, the authors seem optimistic when they chart the
futuristic course as one of recognition and tolerance of the differences –
indeed benign indifference - between these two communities rather than evolving
into a ‘composite culture’.
Have the authors left anything
which has a bearing on Indianness? One
feature which would have enriched this
discussion is the fusion of technological innovations in the daily lives of
Indians. The easy adoptability of
technological innovations by Indians, especially by people belonging to the
lowest strata of society, needs a probe.
How technological changes have affected family lives, caste
relationships, sexuality and even spiritual lives also need a detailed study.
Posts
