This was posted by me on a/o as Msg # 5784 on 28 Jan 2005 as `Indian Odyssey - 3`:
To bring
this to a close, here are some of my musings:
On
Identity and Culture
Those
familiar with my views know that I have always distanced myself from India on
the basis that as East African Asians (EAAs) by birth (or upbringing) we are
not Indians but rather people with an Indian ancestry. In the current jargon,
this translates as `P I Os` (persons of Indian origin) as distinct from NRIs
(Non-Indian Residents) who are Indian
citizens resident abroad, though the Indians themselves include in this
category those who were born in India and have since migrated
elsewhere, irrespective of their current nationality. (It happened that the
second `Pravasi` or Conference on Indians Overseas, had just ended as we
arrived in Mumbai on 10 January). The distinction between PIOs (or more accurately Persons of Indian Descent) and NRIs is important, not just in
terms of legal niceties but also because of fundamental cultural differences -
`culture` here is used in the broader sense of a way of life in societal terms,
not just in terms of ethnic or religious heritage. Of course, our EAA identity has since morphed
into an adopted and hyphenated British-Asian (or Indo-Canadian or Indo-American
as the case may be) variety in the wake of our further migration to the West.
And while paradoxically from a global perspective we may have thus become part
of the vast Indian diaspora, in India itself we are seen as `foreigners`, which
is fine with me, but taking a long view of prospective history, the
`Indianness` of the `diaspora` may surely in fifty or hundred years be
subsumed into another form of identity?
Why make
heavy weather of this? Well, as is no doubt everyone else`s experience, you are
constantly asked "Where are you from?", "Where are you
originally from" or even "Are you Indian?" and we took pains to
point out that we ourselves were not but our parents / grandparents (`baap
dadah`) were from Gujarat or Jamanagar and if appropriate then we would explain
that they had migrated to Africa ((my father`s had settled there around 1910
and he himself did so in 1915) and that we were born and brought up there and
so on. That made more sense, as it put everything in the right framework. We
were clearly strangers to Indian ways; we did not look, speak or behave like
the natives or even the Indian elite. Our outlook, approach, mannerism etc all
were different.
We are
all familiar with the absence of `please` and `thank you` in Indian parlance
but Indians also lack in the kind of interactive communication that we take for
granted. Everything became instantly formalized or businesslike. Indeed, it was
not possible to engage them in eye-contact or casual conversation; they simply
do not notice you. For example, if you meet them in a lift or hotel corridor or
brush shoulders with them in queues or restaurants or other public places, even
basic human courtesies are shunned. Among themselves, conscious of status as
they are, strangers rarely acknowledge the existence of each other.
Apart
from situations where we were the honoured customers or recipients of service or of private hospitality, social intercourse was simply not on. The only
other people that we could easily communicate with at our own level were the
other tourists, whether of Indian origin or not. And in this regard, our East
African connection always came in handy. We had no difficulty in identifying fellow British Indians with an EA background. Before we left, I had predicted that we
were bound to bump into someone we knew somewhere on our trip - and that
happened on the very first night of our arrival in Kerala - when Vassant Gajjar
(an old college-mate of Kanchan and Bhadras) spotted us in our hotel!
So we
were touring the land of our ancestors, rather than a country where we
ourselves had originated from. Indians to me are not my brothers, but rather
cousins (once or twice removed) - though in typical Indian fashion this could
be turned in `cousin-brothers`! At times of course, the locals may have thought
we were from another part of India, and in Mumbai dealing with taxi-wallahs was
better done in Hindi, but by and large we were treated either as foreigners or
as NRIs, even when we spoke in Gujarati in Gujarat. And here is where the
Indians characterstic high regard for everything and everybody `foreign` worked
to our advantage. They are just too eager to please and accommodate you, too
respectful, too easily impressed, too `good` towards foreigners. Is this some
sort of an inferiority complex or a candid acceptance of foreign superiority as
far as material things are concerned?
On how Indian society has changed
One thing
that is very noticeable is the change in the `master`-`servant` relationship
and perceptions. Gone are the days of rude, loud commands or disdainful conduct
towards employees, minions or those whose job it was to serve others. Now the
masters address their servants with respect; `tamme` instead of `tu`, with
polite consideration. Commensurately, the fawning obsequiousness of the
underlings has been replaced by a new, more self-respecting kind of
relationship. As one highly placed individual remarked, this reflected the
realization that neither side could do without the other. So respect has grown
out of necessity - no bad thing! But as I alluded to in my remarks about
Mumbai, there seemed to be a sea-change in attitudes towards the poor
underclass. It is almost as if the rising middle classes wish them to disappear
from sight. When on the few occasions that we were besotted by beggars, there
were efforts made by others to discourage or push them away, and a perceptible
air of embarrassment even.
On
Irritable Indian habits
A
paradoxical example of contrary behaviour, considering how keeping one`s social
distance is regarded otherwise, is the tendency of Indians to stand or walk
past or mingle too close to you for comfort. I had to sternly tell guys, on
more than one occasion, to move away from me while I was using a public
telephone or conducting other business They are not bothered about either
eavesdropping on your conversation or letting you hear theirs. They are also
prone to touch and take what we would regard as familiar liberties. I suppose
this comes from living on top of one another in an overpopulated country. The
same is reflected of course in the way they drive, ride or move about on roads,
which here would be interpreted as aggressive and inconsiderate. What we call
respect for space is absent.
On
Indians` disregard of individuality
Another
facet of the same phenomenon is a lack of comprehension on their part of the
importance we attach to individual need, expression or idiosyncracy. At
Palitana or the Ajanta caves, there were all these `doli` carriers who
incessantly importuned business, insisting that we had to be ferried
("Baba / Madam / Auntie / Dadda / Uncle ... you need it, you please let us
carry you".) How does an old English person, hobbling along determinedly
with a stick, react if one were to offer them a hand? It was the sheer inability
to understand that however slowly or seemingly painfully you may be walking,
you still want to do your own thing.
And then
how I longed to be able to push my own suitcase or carry my handluggage - but
no, it was quickly whisked away from me by anyone out of a whole array of
minders. And there were always lesser souls quick on the draw to open or close
doors, to unfold your napkins, to do the minutest thing that might require some
action, never mind physical effort. At hotel checkins and departures, there
were always not one but several members of the staff who performed their
alloted task in strict hierarchical order (eg. the gatekeeper only opened the
doors, the cases were carried by a porter (someone else having brought them
down), and one was greeted or waved off by a third, presumably higher employee.
It is hardly any wonder that one can see so many Indian men and women are
mis-shapen, obese, wobbly on their feet or otherwise physically unfit! But
equally there was an even greater number of people whom we would call `little`,
undernourished or at least underdeveloped. (I know this sounds like a rant, but
I am allowed the occasional outburst!).
Everyone
is generally type-cast or, more cynically, rather caste-typed. They look at you
and after `placing` you in a category or class that they think you belong to,
determine their actions, behaviour or responses accordingly. You are either veg
or non-veg, or Hindu, Muslim or Christian, or rich (by their standards) or
lowdown. Nuances of gradation or commonality are too subtle.
On
Religion and Religiosity
Wherever
we went, we found no evidence of any communal tension whatsoever. In Kerala, we
were told that there is roughly an equal number of Hindus, Muslims and
Christians and that they live side by side and interact with each other in
perfect harmony. We saw no reason to doubt that. In Aurangabad, a traditional
Muslim majority area, too, Hindus and Hindu temples were visibly an integral
part of society. As it happened, our guide there was Muslim; he was a real expert
on the Ajunta and Ellora cave complexes, with their underlying Hindu Jain and
Buddhist significance in terms of religious symbolism philosophy and
scriptures. Mumbai of course is a cosmopolitan city and people professing
different religious affiliations seemed to be at ease. In Gujarat too, three
years after the bloody riots, there was nothing to suggest that normality had
not returned. Indeed, nowhere did we come across anyone making hostile remarks
about any particular religion or community, though regional differences or
characteristics were often referred to, but without rancour.
That
said, we cannot of course get away from the fact that religion dominates Indian
life. It serves as the primary yardstick of individual and group identity.
Everyone is defined by reference to it. Symbols of religion abound; in dress,
in action and in other manifestations. So this is another paradox; at the
political and ideological level, so much is made of the country as a secular
republic while at the same time people`s lives are governed by religious
fervour. For someone like me, religion is a stranglehold that shackles the free
spirit. And yet, we cannot get away from the fact that as in all ancient
civilizations, so in India - more perhaps than anywhere else - religion has
been at the root of so much creativity, in terms of art, architecture, music,
dance and literature. Recently we have had discussion on this forum about the
Indians` tendency to magnify and glorify their past; but wherever we went there
are extant examples of the most magnificent structures and specimens - temples,
statues, mosques, minarets, forts, palaces, paintings, murals, carvings,
sculptures and all manner of artefacts, going back to more than a thousand
years. Of course, there has been religious conflict as well, with mutual hatred
boiling over to the point of genocide and lesser forms of cruelty and
destruction.
This then
is a facet of India that both fascinates and repels us: I certainly am not
comfortable with having to navigate around the religious boundaries and
limitations. The only optimistic assessment that one can make is that despite
the historical legacy and living presence of religious differences, Indian
society seems to accept and be able to live with diversity, with all manner of
people being accepted as part of the body politic. There is a growing sense of
nationhood.
On
Cultural / Ethnic Affinity
And
finally, how do we relate to Indians? More like members of an extended clan
where we left the common family home two or three generations ago. The distance
is in terms of both time and space. One does not feel connected in any personal
or immediate sense; only in terms of an ethnic dimension. Emotion does not
enter into the equation; human empathy does. We wish the Indians well of
course. Their dynamism has to be admired and their efforts have to be
encouraged. We feel proud of their achievement and struggles, and to be of
Indian stock - to share a common ancestry and past. But would we like to live,
CAN we live there? Clearly not. This is true of even of most NRIs. Have we got
India out of our system? Towards the end, we thought we had and that we would
not be making a return visit again (even though we already are committed to
another trip in October). Now I am not so sure. India in small doses is fine.
So after a suitable interval of time, I am sure, (like the proverbial lover who
does not admit to desire or the mother who thinks she has had enough of babies)
the urge to go there again will return. Let us see.
RAMNIK
SHAH
Surrey England
Surrey England
No comments:
Post a Comment