Holding fast, in spite of divisions

It is necessary to hold fast to one's cherished ideals and values, those values that led us to Independence, and need still to be nurtured.

.... Right action is freedom From past and future also. For most of us, this is the aim Never here to be realised; Who are only undefeated Because we have gone on trying...

- T.S. Eliot in The Dry Salvages

IN recent weeks the litany of the dead has been read over in the media, the names of those killed by groups who have some vague notions of freedom, of independent areas of their own, their lebensraum. Latest among them was a group in Andhra Pradesh - a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), a Municipal Commissioner and some security personnel. They were killed for reasons that are not very clear to most of us, but it would be fair to conclude that the reasons had to do with the demand made by members of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) for `freedom' and an assertion of their power.

Set against this and similar objectives sought through killing and violence, such as the various acts of the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), of the armed groups in the north-eastern region and of the terrorist groups in Jammu and Kashmir, calls for unity or the affirmation of a commitment to unity appears a little tired, even superficial and more of a ritual than anything else. Perhaps because our unity is a rather complex thing, whose very complexity makes it difficult to use as a clearly defined value in any argument; but also because the stridency of the demand for separate identities has drowned out other voices effectively.

The freedom struggle may have had different strands of thinking woven into it, but the overarching identity was clearly visible, the goal of freedom from colonial rule was what brought all groups and parties together. That goal, the goal of an independent India, had an implicit acceptance, an assumption that the India that was to be freed was to be an integrated whole India, where all communities, castes and creeds mingled as one, all working towards that common, fiercely cherished goal.

But that imagined India ceased to exist within a few years of the country becoming independent. The spectre of separate identities raised its head, and the new government at the Centre yielded, tragically, by setting up the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC). Suddenly, it seemed, people speaking Telugu, and then those speaking Kannada, and then speaking Malayalam, could not bear to be part of a State of which they had been integral units for over a century; the existing State would, the advocates of separatism cried, destroy their languages and their cultures. They would be `crushed', and eliminated. So, today we have four States where there was one; and then, as we know the speakers of Gujarati discovered that they were on the brink of being wiped out in the State of Bombay, and that State was divided into Gujarat and Maharashtra. Never mind that even today the finest Gujarati theatre is in Mumbai; Gujarat was on the verge of extinction in the State of Bombay and, therefore, Gujaratis had to be `free'.

Other separations followed, as we know; Assam broke into seven States, Punjab into three. And after two decades there was another round of carving up - Uttar Pradesh became two States, Bihar two, and Madhya Pradesh lost its eastern portion, which then became Chhattisgarh. And the demands have not ceased; the Bodos in Assam want Bodoland, the Gorkhas of West Bengal want Gorkhaland - the list goes on and on.

The picture is not really as simple as it may seem, or as the preceding comments may make it out to be. In some cases, there is a general feeling of discrimination that the authorities have done little to dispel; the disaffected have not been reassured, not only by speeches and declarations but by concrete action based on what the people involved really wanted. Had that happened it might well be that the demands for separation would have disappeared. Perhaps, today there would have been larger, more viable States, formidable in terms of their significance in a federal republic.

But, worldwide, the demand for freedom by a community or group is not always a demand which, when realised, means freedom and happiness for the people. Often the new, freed States or countries have rapidly revealed their true colours, emerging as despotic, oppressive regimes.

It has happened in Africa, and it has happened in Sri Lanka. Even in the carving out of separate States within India the process has not necessarily meant some kind of transition to utopia for the residents of the new States. Jharkhand has now got, from what one understands, a fairly despotic and corrupt ruling coterie; and Chhattisgarh is not very much better. The naxalite groups, such as the CPI(Maoist), have virtually taken control of some densely forested areas of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Orissa and operated with impunity in some areas of Bihar; their rule seems to be harsh and oppressive, from all accounts, with summary executions and mutilations being carried out to enforce their authority and terrify the local people, mainly the tribal communities, into submission.

Not that those who seek, and secure unity are very much better; we have seen how the country created by the vision of Marshal Tito was sought to be kept together by barbaric acts of a horrifying nature and scale. We are seeing even now how Sudan is seeking to do the same thing, even though its government has come to some kind of understanding with the rebels in the south. But the way they have been brutalising the people of Darfur, using the cruel and vicious gangs of what they call the Janjaweed, is of a piece with their earlier oppression of the rebels in the south.

HERE, at home, there may not have been genocide and cruelty, but there has been oppression, and what is worse, an apathy that has led to a splintering of States. However, and this is more a tribute to the people than to their leaders, there has been a steadfast commitment to being Indian; a generally perceived threat to the country has brought everyone together, differences forgotten. We saw this in 1962 and again in 1965 and 1971.

But as soon as national crises recede, the demands for separation become strong, and continue to grow. Today, it is not a question of language anymore; it is of caste. And the demands that are being made are by political leaders across the board. It seems as though, in their obsession with power, they simply are not aware of the dangers of dividing people along caste lines. And if, they find a ready audience it is because there is, among the people they are appealing to, a response born out of frustration and resentment at not being given the same treatment as others, itself a result of the apathy of those in authority, those who shelter behind statistics and reports. They seem oblivious to the fact that the reality of resentment is not collective mental aberration, but a general unhappiness that gives the lie to their statistics and reports.

Between these two poles it would look as if all that can be done is bow before events and let them take their course. But that will not do. It is necessary to hold fast to one's cherished ideals and values, those values that led us to Independence, and need still to be nurtured. That is what T.S. Eliot's words in The Dry Salvages, quoted in the beginning of this column, so eloquently express.