World Peace 101

EXTENT

If the extent of the human being – not only in terms of physical dimensions, but also in philosophical scope – is determined and agreed-upon, the world’s problems will no longer exist. The loose definition of the individual’s jurisdiction, open to interpretation and debate, splits us into liberals and conservatives, jihadis and atheists, capitalists and socialists, cow-protectors and beef-eaters, haves and have-nots.

All issues are first fought in the mind, and then in the physical world. Laws govern what we, as individuals, are allowed to control and what we aren't. Citizens who have problems with existing laws campaign for reforms - this is the constitutional route - or work outside the purview of the law. What the individual perceives as his or her jurisdiction ultimately shapes all major debates in the world today.

The niche Western twin-solutions – liberalism and individualism – oversimplify the debate, but give us the most conventionally accepted definition of the individual’s jurisdiction.

OWNERSHIP

If it is agreed that the human being extends from the toes up to the head, and from the back up to the tips of the fingers, then rights and duties can be determined for this definition of the individual. Laws can be tailored to suit this requirement; any violation of the human body could then be termed a crime. If you get mugged at the street-corner, your personal space has been violated; this is a crime. Similarly, rape is a crime as it is forcible encroachment of personal space. Murder is then the highest crime possible under this system, as it deprives the body of life itself.

The individual’s limit can be extended, with some difficulty, to human-possessions as well. This would then cover issues such as theft, arson and cross-border infiltration. The complications in this extrapolation arise out of the concept of shared ownership. Does a house belong to the tenant or the owner? Do you – the owner – have a right to determine who is and who isn’t allowed into the house? Is it reasonable to enforce a No Smoking policy in the house, even though you – the owner – don’t currently live there? If you are a vegetarian opposed to animal slaughter, is it reasonable to ask your tenant to refrain from cooking meat in the kitchen?

Marriage can be seen as a contract wherein two individuals devolve certain strictly private rights in order to gain other rights over each other. Again, we ask ourselves: “Where do I end? Where do you begin?” We struggle to define these boundaries with children as well, because they are inseparable from the parents. Is it a good thing if a child is being forced to do his or her homework? At what age do we start respecting the child’s liberty? This is only the tip of a vast grey-zone, which even individualism and liberalism – which have worked well so far – struggle to pierce.

COMMUNITY

Drawing the boundaries with greater precision or defining rules with firmer bases do not help in tackling this grey jurisdiction. No matter how well you draw these lines, there will always be conflict. There will be conflict even if everybody agrees with a common definition of the limits of a human being.

Because an individual is created by a community, and a community, in turn, is created by a cluster of individuals, it is impossible to separate them from one-another. The society as a whole often carries powerful opinions, and these deserve certain respect. A blind shift towards individuality disrupts a system of shared communal-values. The individual's struggle against societal values must be acknowledged; it must not be opposed. But it also should not be glorified.

““I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.”

— "The Friends of Voltaire", Evelyn Beatrice Hall [1906]

IDEAS

In the light of Charlie Hebdo and the rise of Islamism, it has often been said that people have rights, but ideas do not have rights. Saying this repeatedly does not bring us any closer to a planet where this is true. Much has been said about the contagious nature of ideas, how they are bulletproof, how they cannot be destroyed by bombs and bullets… All these sayings are, interestingly, said about ideas which are considered positive. They are nevertheless true for all kinds of ideas. Shooting Parisians does destroy the idea of liberté-égalité-fraternité.  Similarly, bombing ISIS does not destroy the idea of a Caliphate.

The earlier quote (by Evelyn Beatrice Hall) about the Freedom of Speech and Expression is an important step towards liberty, but it takes a myopic view of society. In fact, it fails to consider the Idea as a serious force - more serious, perhaps, than the individual. This is because the idea does not ever exist alone, independent of actions and feelings. By denying the idea certain intrinsic rights, and by simply disapproving it and letting it be, we only create a more confusing, agitated world.

Ideas are shared possessions of humanity. The concepts we use to deal with them are far too limited in their scope, and thus yield statements such as “ideas do not have rights”. Of course, ideas have rights! The moment such a statement is made, it becomes true. We can choose not to acknowledge them, at our own peril.

Ideas usually lie in this grey-zone; they are neither mine nor yours. Yet, we expect one of them to be more correct than the other. Terrorism is an idea, counter-terrorism is another. Capitalism is an idea, communism is another. Science is an idea, not-Science is another. One of these sides can gain temporary ground over another; that is all what such a victory will ever be: temporary.

CONFLICT

It does not matter how strongly you believe in Science or, for that matter, Allah. There will be another side that does not agree. At this point, we have a choice. First choice: we can draw idea-borders (we can disapprove of each other), march to the frontlines and train our weapons at people on the other side. This is what we have been historically doing. According to modern sensibility, ideological wars are wonderful as long as there is no physical violation of another’s space. Since ideas do not have rights, it is perfectly acceptable (and sometimes, glorified) to decimate them. This, however, does little to settle a conflict. This constant violation of the individual’s space – in a realm that is abstract, but very real – is left unacknowledged until a physical action takes place.

The other choice is to create a world of shared possessions. Everything belongs to everyone, with varying degrees of influence. Boundaries, if they must exist, need to be fluid. In such a world, ideas can be acknowledged. Dialogue will not mean debate. Different viewpoints will coexist; the urge to unite viewpoints will give way to the urge to understand differences.

Not only will we allow for the existence of foreign ideas, but we will also understand them. We will respect ideas for being what they are: ideas. “So you believe that God created our world over seven days? I think we evolved from a Spaghetti monster. What do you think about that?”

The definition of the individual needs to be extended and softened. The world could then be a better place.

Tamil and the Concept of India

Narendra Modi's "maximum Governance, minimum" Government has taken a minor detour, throwing in another troublesome issue into the pot of problems. The directive aimed at maximizing Hindi and minimizing English has Indian bureaucrats scrambling for Hindi dictionaries. Quite predictably, regional leaders seeing red, have issued strong written responses to the Center, causing the Modi-regime to partially recall their broad-spectrum antibiotic.

However, this stirred hornet's nest now smells of Annadurai and Periyar and of a certain Mr. Raghunath Vinayak Dhulekar who famously said - "People who do not know Hindustani have no right to stay in India. People who are present in the House to fashion a constitution for India and do not know Hindustani are not worthy members of this assembly. They had better leave."

The days of Hindustani ended a long time ago when the two-nation theory was practically imposed. The Persian-Arabic influence on Hindustani quickly decayed, quite naturally but with a few political nudges from here and there, until what remained was only Hindi. The fact that the Indian Constitution was written in English irked many in those days, but it stayed that way due to political and administrative vision that remained in an assembly ravaged by nationalistic fervour. Sixty years have passed since those turbulent times and we're back where we began. The same parties which had issues back in the day have troubles in accepting changes which are being imposed on them.

I write this article as a Tamilian and as an Indian, hoping that I don't have to choose between the two or explain which I am more - a Tamilian or an Indian. Since Tamil Nadu has been the most vocal state about its displeasure with these new directives, leading to questions about Tamil Nadu's patriotism and "why does TN have a problem if Andhra Pradesh can accept it?", I will give you a Madrassi's viewpoint and state, in clear terms, where we stand.

But for that, we will need to take a short trip into history.

History and Individuality:

The third century BC was a truly glorious period for the land which is now India, with great emperors such as Chandragupta Maurya and his grandson Ashoka creating some of the greatest land empires ever known to man and subsequently consolidating this powerful territory, ushering in a truly golden age. This (see left) is what the Mauryan empire looked like at its peak.

Ashoka, after relinquishing his arms rather dramatically after the Kalinga war, contributed majorly to the growth of another major Indian religion - Buddhism. The languages of his state, namely Magadhi, Sanskrit and the Prakrits flourished during this period.

At quite the same, the southern end of the Indian peninsula, was divided among three dynasties which were each centuries old already.

"Bindusara (Chandragupta Maurya's son) didn't conquer the friendly Dravidian kingdoms of the Chola, ruled by King Ilamcetcenni, the Pandyas, and Cheras. Apart from these southern states, Kalinga was the only kingdom in India that didn't form a part of Bindusara's empire. It was later conquered by his son, Ashoka."

Over the coming hundreds of years, the northern plains would change hands several times - with the seat of power remaining in Pataliputra and with Sanskrit gaining great prominence. The beginning of the golden Gupta age incidentally coincided with the last of the great Sangam meetings in the Pandyan kingdom.

Subsequently, while the kingdoms in the North fragmented further, the Chola empire also faded around the 4th Century AD, and remained hidden for nearly five centuries. This period marked the ascendancy of the Pallavas and the Pandyas in the southern part of the peninsula.

Even during this time, the cities of Mayiladudurai, Chidambaram, Thanjavur, Thiruchi and Pudukkottai fell under the sway of the fallen empire. Meanwhile the ascendant Pandyas further south extended their influence from their capital - Madurai.

Between 800 AD and the end of the thirteenth century, the Cholas were once again a well-established empire and often the most powerful kingdom of the south. Gangaikonda Cholapuram is, in fact, said to have been built after a successful military campaign all the way to the banks of the Ganges.

Beyond the thirteenth century, the Pandyas still flourished and even reached their peak. It wasn't until the raids by Malik Kafur and the formation of the Madurai Sultanate that this last great empire of South India was finally vanquished. All this after 2000 years at the helm of affairs.

Even after the end of the great empires of the south, India as a land was never fully consolidated. Akbar's great Mughal empire (and Aurangzeb's also) from the 1600s failed to completely absorb 'India' completely.

In fact, it wasn't until the British Raj that the map looked like this:

What all these millenia of indigenous rule has created - please note that the separated territory involved is predominantly Tamil Nadu and Kerala - is a strong sense of identity with language, which has been the pole-star in Tamil history.

Hindus, Muslims and Christians live cheek-by-jowl almost everywhere along TN's coastline today. In fact, some of the best assimilation of different communities in a particular area can be seen in the state, where you can easily mistake a dargah's ritual as that of a temple's, or confuse Mariamman with Mother Mary. These are people divided by faith and united by language.

Unlike most Northern communities where people identify most strongly with religion and caste, the divisions down south are on lingual lines. Although I previously removed AP from this picture, one will do well to remember Potti Sriramulu (picture below), who born into the Madras Presidency died as a Telugu martyr.

His death reshaped India's map and gave us states based on language. Interestingly enough, there were debates as to whether Madras was to be part of Andhra Pradesh or Tamil Nadu (with C. Rajagopalachari and Nehru, both favouring to keep it in TN) owing to the large communities of Andhrites as well as Tamilians in the city.

When human beings draw careless boundaries on the map, they reshape the future of civilization. Only a few decades after the formation of AP, we have only a small (but often influential) representation of Telugu-speakers in Chennai today. Similarly, Tirupati - where boards in Tamil were ubiquitous - has been cleansed of the Tamil language and replaced by Telugu. Stronger divides still, happen on the national level, as in the case of India and Pakistan, where now the respective scripts are mutually unintelligible. 

What all this tells us is that language, like any other aspect of civilization, requires patronage and support in order to exist. The invisible hand of market forces can hardly stand up to the real force of political will. In such a scenario, it makes perfect sense to protect a language and preserve heritage. Reactionary steps are only to be expected when the Government of the land tries to propagate one of its languages preferentially, albeit not necessarily at the expense of another. But we are talking about identity here, and there are few things that come with higher stakes.

The Modern Notion of India:

Sometimes, I am perturbed by the fact that restaurants in Delhi have on their boards messages such as:

"Cuisines: Indian, South Indian, Chinese". The definition of 'India' then begins to confuse me. Is South India a sub-set of India (as would seem logical) or is it another part of a vast region, thoroughly separated, united only by national elections?

Even today, I am asked - "Why do your people not speak Hindi? It is the mother tongue of the majority of India!" To clarify things at this point, I speak Hindi and Tamil, although I can write only in the former, much to my chagrin. My parents, brought up in 20th Century India, decided that it was better for me to learn the language spoken by the majority first, before my own mother tongue. While all that is water under the bridge, this only helps me consolidate my point that the people of Tamil Nadu are not opposed to Hindi as a language.

However, we expect our guests to speak in Tamil (or at least feign to learn) when they are visiting us, just the way we learn Hindi when we visit them. To say that Hindi is more Indian than Tamil is, or the even more inane "Hindi is the national language", is a poor line for apatriot to take. I am reminded of a vivid quote made by C. N. Annadurai - "It is claimed that Hindi should be the common language because it is spoken by the majority. Why should we then claim the tiger as our national animal instead of the rat which is so much more numerous? Or the peocock as our national bird when the crow is ubiquitous?"

It must also be noted here that Hindi and English are both, to some extent, foreign languages in the southern tip of the peninsula. The fact that enterprising Malabaris have picked up the languages quickly and become trilingual (I am assuming not all Malabaris can speak Arabic also) is something they should be credited with, and this is not something one can hold against people who haven't become multilingual with such rapidity.

While the question of whether a person from Region C should be encouraged, or perhaps forced, to speak in Hindi is widely debated, the more basic question regarding whether an outsider should be asked to learn the tongue-of-the-land is being left unattended. When I first went to Roorkee (which lies in the state of Uttarakhand), I was appalled to find out that people couldn't match the southern states with their respective languages. In fact, even today, I'm fairly confident that few will be able to tell which language is which from among the following:

So, another thing that the imposition of Hindi by the state does is promote one-upmanship, and let citizens take it for granted that Hindi is more important than any other language in India. In fact, prominent books written in the twenty-first century use those very words - "Hindi is the most important language in the country". Such statements beg the question: "Does Indian-ness have its roots in Hindi?"

Is it wrong for an auto-wallah in TN (who probably doesn't know Hindi) to speak in Tamil to a Hindi-speaker, while it is right for the Prime Minister (who clearly knows English) to converse in Hindi alone with a non-Hindi speaker? Why is the promotion of a state-language any different from the promotion of a state-religion? Why is only one of these considered taboo?

Second Language and The Future:

Because most higher-learning in this world is being transmitted through the medium of English, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to reject the language altogether. Unless the state can magically conjure a similar infrastructure in Hindi, as there exists in English, it will be wrong to ask people of the southern states to choose Hindi over English, as their second language.

For all practical purposes, this would imply that quarter of a billion people become trilingual at least, to ensure a smooth transition. Learning languages isn't an easy task, especially when the languages belong to entirely different families. This is another reason why Gujaratis, Marwadis and even Maharashtrians can understand Hindi more easily than Tamilians. Similar scripts and shared roots are a great advantage while learning new tongues.

Contrary to a popular misconception, Tamil does not have its roots in Sanskrit. The other three languages have different proportions of Tamil and Sanskrit, as they evolved over the millenniums, gradually developing a flavour of their own. Kannada and Telugu especially, have incorporated far more Sanskrit, and are therefore slightly closer to the northern stream of languages.

All this makes it difficult, both in terms of learning and in terms of ideological acceptance, for Hindi to become a widely accepted second-language in the south, especially in Tamil Nadu. It is possible that, over time, there will be organic growth of the language (this is actually highly probable due to the one-sided language transfer within the country) and that is the only acceptable solution.

Until then, we don't need any more link languages. And thank you very much, we're well-integrated into mother India. We certainly don't need anyone to tell us how we can be better Indians.