INDIA Midnight to Millennium

-Shashi Tharoor

Gandhi saw India as a house with all the doors and windows open, through which winds from around the world would blow, without sweeping Indians off their feet. Under Gandhi & Nehru, Indian nationalism became a rare animal, indeed. It was not based on any of the universally-adopted indices of national identity. Not language(Indians speak a total of 35 languages, each spoken by at least one million of the population, of which 18 are recognized by the constitution.) Not ethnicity, since many Indians have much ethnical commonality with foreigners. Not religion, as India is home to almost every known religion other than Shintoism. Not geography, since the natural geography of the land was hacked by the partition of 1947. Not even by territory does the Indian nationalism base itself, since anyone with at-least one grandparent of Pre-partioned Indian origin, is eligible for Indian citizenship Indian nationalism is a nationalism of idea. An oddity of the Indian nationalism may be best demonstrated by the fact that our former Prime Minister, H.D. Devagowda read the customary Independence-day speech(presented every year with much pomp & fanfare in Hindi) in Kannada script. An oddity it is, considering the fact that Hindi is our national language. Only India could be ruled by a man who does not understand the national language which inturn is deemed indecipherable by about half of the billion-strong population! What better example could demonstrate the might of Indian pluralism? To put it plain, every Indian is a minority. India may be likened to a thali - a selection of sumptuous dishes in different bowls, each tastes different, and does not necessarily mix with the next, but they belong together in the same plate, and complement each other in making the meal a satisfying repast. For long (even today), Unity in diversity has been the catch-phrase for the Indian identity. Indianness is so vast that a wheatish Punjabi koodi donning Salwar Kameez, is actually foreign to a Tamil Brahmin lady of similar age bracket. Both are equally foreign to some of us, but equally Indian to us all Red Fort A remainder of unexploited progress The atrophy of the line of association that binds people is more fearsome than economic stagnation, or political apathy. India is the most important country for the future of the world E.P. Thompson, British Historian And India, is , so to speak , for Indians stand at the intersection of four of the most important debates faced by the world, today: 1. Bread v/s Freedom

Can democracy alleviate desperate poverty or do its inbuilt-inefficiencies do nothing, but impede progress? Is the instability of political contention and makeshift coalitions - a luxury that a developing country cannot afford? As todays young & succesful go on fighting through their lives in the daily struggle for bread, should they consider political freedom as a dispensable distraction? 2. Centralization v/s Fedaralism Does tomorrows India need to be run be a strong central government, able to transcend the fissiparous differences between state governments on the basis of cast, creed, & language or is that government best which centralizes least? 3. Pluralism v/s Fundamentalism Is secularism established in Indias constituition (now increasingly attacked as a western affectation) essential in a pluralistic society or should India find refuge, like most of its third world counterparts, in its own religious identity? 4. Globalization v/s Self Reliance Does the entry of foreign consumer goods(as of now), pose an influence more vital than necessary, or should the decades-old mantra of self-sufficiency be scrapped off permanently? India had political assemblies with elaborate procedures when half of the world around was in total anarchy The new India should be greater than the sum of its parts. An India that denies itself to some Indians could end up being denied to all Indians.