Coffee With a Macedonian

Today at a coffee place in Linköping, I was talking to my colleague Dimitar about his home country – Macedonia. It’s a small small country near Greece which used to be part of communist Yugoslavia. In 1991 Yugoslavia broke up and became several small states. The interesting thing is that Yugoslavia was a bit like India in the sense there was one language that a large part of the country used: Serbo-Croatian and there were smaller languages and regions like Macedonia with Macedonian, Albania with Alabnian and Bosnia-Herzegovina with Bosnian.

Yugoslavia was ruled for a long time by the dictator  Tito. Tito was actually a pretty good ruler, and interestingly, a friend of India. He, Nehru and Mubarak started this non alignment movement some time in the 60s. Tito died sometime in the mid 80s and soon after his death, the country split up primarily because the new rulers weren’t as strong as he was.

So much for background. Now the interesting thing is that Dimitar says that the older people think that things were better under Tito’s rule than they are now. On the other hand younger people think Macedonia breaking up from Yugoslavia was a good thing and this now gives Macedonians an opportunity to establish themselves in the world. Perhaps the older people are just nostalgic, or perhaps they’re misinformed. In communist countries information doesn’t flow freely and it’s all too easy to paint a nice picture even when things are bad because the government controls all means of mass communication. There must also be some truth to it, because you can’t lie about for example, people going hungry. If you didn’t get food, it doesn’t matter what the TV says, you’ll know things are bad. Anyway, it was fascinating to hear stories from Macedonia. On that note, I really wish I could talk to a North Korean, it would be very interesting to find out how well a government can force people to think what the government wants them to think.

Another interesting thing about Yugoslavia was that Tito’s government forced everybody to learn Serbo-Croatian and used that language as the official language. Now however, constituent nations have abandoned that language and adopted their own. Macedonia for instance, has switched to Macedonian.

There is another example of this kind, of a mutli-cultural communist nation with one “dominant” language which was communist and that then broke up and the resulting countries abandoned that language and started using their own: The USSR and Russian. The USSR, perhaps because it was predominantly Russian and based in Moscow used Russian and forced all the constituent states like Ukraine, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan to use Russian. But since the break-up of the USSR, these states have all started using their own languages and are attempting to define their “own” culture.

What I find interesting is the following question: is it really possible to have a long-lasting (I haven’t said how long is long enough, but let’s leave that question alone for now) multi-cultural, multi-ethic, multi-lingual country? Most countries in the world are not multi-cultural. And it seems like the ones which were didn’t last long. Certainly evidence from Yugoslavia and the USSR seems to suggest that if you try to keep the country together by forcing a national language down people’s throats, saying “This is our national language, you all need to use it”, then that method doesn’t work.

What I also wonder about is, how many of the lessons of these nations are applicable to India. Will India also eventually break-up? If not, then why not? If so, then how does one stop it? Can it be stopped at all? Should it be stopped?

I remember a chapter in our Hindi textbook in the 9th or 10th standard where we read this essay by Dr. Rajendra Prasad about Indianness. He suggested that although we have so many cultures, so many languages and so many differences, there is in fact an underlying factor common to all Indians. He says that we distinguish ourselves by being (1) tolerant and (2) non-violent. Tolerance is interesting, because I do think Indians are very tolerant. I grew up in Bangalore and I used to live among Kannadigas and although I don’t share that many festivals with them and we have slightly different customs but I never felt bad/ashamed about such things. This isn’t true in many other places. Dimitar says that when he was a kid , he used to go out with Serbians, and he wouldn’t advertise the fact that he was Macedonian. I also lived in Bhopal and I thought that people were extremely understanding of different cultures and customs. This is, I think, not so easy to get anywhere else in the world.

Non-violence is another goal I can identify with. It’s a tradition that dates much further back than Gandhi. In fact, even in the Bhagavad Gita, one of Arjuna’s main concerns is the killing of innocent soldiers over a family dispute. I remember my Granny telling me once when I poked an ant with a stick that if I did that, I’d go to hell and a demon would poke me with a stick, replicating exactly what I did to the ant. The details are unimportant, but the message is to never knowingly cause pain to any living creature. That is perhaps one reason why so many Indians are vegetarian – far more so than any other country.

I can think of one more factor unique to Indians that is derived from Hinduism. When I think of Hinduism – I think of three things: Ahimsa, Satya and Dharma. We’ve dealth with Ahimsa, and Satya is universally acknowledged as a good thing. Dharma is a bit unique. I think Indians, thanks to their belief in Karma are somewhat unique in the world for believing in doing good without expecting anything in return. It’s drilled into our heads from when we’re kids that you have to do good without expecting anything in return.

Coming back to Dr. Prasad’s essay, the suggestion he makes is that what makes one Indian is not so much your customs or traditions (which sort of define what you do) but rather your ethos and approach towards life and other people (which define why you do what you do). It’s a very interesting thesis, of course, but one that the jury’s still out on. On the face of it, there isn’t really anything in common between me and somebody from say, Punjab. We don’t eat the same food, we don’t pray to the same Gods, we don’t have the same festivals and we don’t even speak the same language. So it’s pretty hard to believe that we both are still somehow “related” because we’re both Indian. But perhaps we are. I don’t know, really. And I’m certainly interested in hearing other peoples’ opinions on this.

I also think it’s a bit unsatisfying to say that we’re all Indian just because there are some lines that Nehru and Jinnah and the British drew in ‘47 and we all happen to be born on one side of that line. Is there a common quality that we all have that makes us all Indian like Dr. Prasad suggests? Even if there isn’t a common quality perhaps we have some commonalities in our culture (Hinduism perhaps) that makes it advantageous for us to stick together. Or you could even argue that we don’t really have anything in common but it still makes economic and social sense for us to be together. For example, a place like Punjab can grow wheat and a place like Mumbai can have all the financial companies, a place like Bangalore can house all the software companies and this arrangement is advantageous to everybody. Or you could argue that there isn’t really anything in common and we should all just split up. There’s something to be said for each option and I don’t really have a very strong opinion on any one of the options.

What I’m really interested in, is hearing your opinion on these issues. Please comment here, or email me at pramod.subramanyan@gmail.com

Of Watches and Bracelets

The hot news straight out of BT is that actress Radhika pandit, star of the movie Moggina Manasu has never worn a watch in her entire life. “I don’t like them”, she expounds philosophically. There. You were about to buy her this shiny new Tanishq, weren’t you? I just saved you a couple thousand bucks. The other thing almost as interesting fact about Radhika Pandit is that she is (reportedly), my friend’s friend’s soon to be ex girlfriend. Apparently, when the poor guy announced at home sweet home that he was seeing an actress, his parents told him they’d kick his ass if he dated actresses, and consequently he is soon going to dump the rich female. If you’re from an orthodox south Indian home, you will agree with me when I say that this is perfectly understandable and simultaneously completely irrational.

But, as always, I digress. The purpose of this weblog is not to disseminate important information about important people, it is force you, my readers, to consume bits of opinion that would otherwise have no consumers. My claim this time is that I am more important than Radhika Pandit, and as always I have sound logical analysis backing this up. What do you think is going to happen if a girl announces at her home that she is seeing me? She’s going to get her ass kicked, no advice, warnings, threats or any lame half-measures. Her parents will get down to the dirty work, putting an end to the problem quickly and effectively. Hence, since I am less marriageable than Ms. Pandit, this must mean I have more fans of the opposite sex than her. Which in turn means all my fans must be given important information about my habits, rituals and other such inane crucial facts. And so, I want you to know that, I, (wait for it) have never, (you won’t believe this), worn a bracelet my entire life.

(Pause for gasps of disbeliefs, oohs and aahs)

And of course, because I am an important person, I must condescend upon explaining to you mere mortals why this is the case. Let me assure you at the outset that this has never has never been about any financial or motivational disability of mine to buy bracelets. I don’t wear bracelets simply because they interfere with the mixing of yin and yang in the body, thereby causing a preponderance of negative energy. Now, I’m sure none of you folks know what Yin and Yang are. Why, you didn’t even know Radhika Pandit’s watch-wearing habits, tsk-tsk. They are these snake like things that live inside a tennis ball. Look below, I even have a picture for you.

Yin and Yang

So the basic funda boils down to this: Yin and Yang mix == happy. No Yin and Yang mixing == unhappy. If you wear a bracelet, Yin and Yang can’t mix, because they’re impaired by the circular boundary of the bracelet. Hence bracelet == unhappy. Geddit?

On Orissa

The new rage among newspaper columnists is the expression of their grief and disbelief and “analysis” of the unfortunate events unfolding in Orissa. Even Jug Suraiya, who I thought was not a half-bad writer, has fallen prey to temptation and is giving us this sagely advice: “The goal of fundamentalists, of any stripe, is to disunite and destroy our common humanity”. 5/5 Sir. That’s what your English teacher would’ve given you if you’d also gone on to finish the 200-word essay on Communalism in Modern India with “We must strive to eliminate all barriers of caste and creed that are the barriers between India and superpower status. Being the future of the country, it is our job, today’s students’, to work towards building a New India. Jai Hind!”.

But I digress. My point is not that I am sick of all the cliched statements spewing forth from learned mouths, (actually it is, but that’s only half the point), my point is also that there is more to this Orissa fiasco than meets the eye. We are told that the latest pogrom was incited by immature religious leaders, a claim I find hard to digest. “Come those guys are richer than us, lets all go kill them”. Doesn’t sound all that convincing, no? Neither does “Come those guys are richer than us, and they’ve killed this Swami guy, lets go kill them”. For a mob to go on a rampage causing the kind of destruction that the rioters in Orissa have caused requires a history of a number of real/perceived injustices and conditions when those injustices can exploitatively converted to rioting fury.

Unfortunately, the wise men and women of the Fourth Estate seem to prefer restatements of vacuous truisms to in-depth analyses.