- Email: [email protected]
Rethinking South Asia
Fururrs. Published
Pergamon
by Elsevier
Vol. 28, No. 9, pp.
889-890, 1996
Science Ltd. Printed in Great Britain OOlf%3287/96 $15.00 + 0.0
REPORT Rethinking
South Asia
S P Udayakumar
This article reports on the 13th Annual Spring Symposium of the Center for South Asian Studies, UH-Manoa,
on ‘Rethinking
South Asia: 1947-l 997', held in Honolulu
on 9 and
10 April 1996.
The 13th Annual Spring Symposium of the Center for South Asian Studies was organized to take stock of the SO years of independence of the major countries of the region and to envision the futures of this highly volatile part of the world. Since the idea was to ‘rethink’ the region, the modern nation-state-oriented divisions were downplayed and the following broad areas of common interest of all South Asian peoples were stressed: Conflict and Governance, History and Politics, Culture and Philosophy, State and Region, and Economy and Development. Delivering the keynote address, Professor Ashis Nandy, Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for the Study of Developing Societies, New Delhi, dealt with the mythic structure that encapsulates and contextualizes the relationship between India and Pakistan. Nandy argued that there is a ‘politics of self in the politics of South Asia and it is an attempt to reconcile and negotiate with certain kinds of social forces that also have some psychological underpinnings. For Indian elites, Pakistan is the ultimate symbol of irrationality and fanaticism. This mythic Pakistan is above all a definer of Indi-
The author may be contacted at the Department ot Political Science, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, 2424 Maile Way, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA (Tel: +I 808 956 8357; fax: +l 808 956 6877; e-mail: [email protected]).
anness, a means of self-analysis and self-intervention. On the other hand, Pakistan’s India has two selves; the source of one is the official ideology of the Pakistani state, and the other is their disowned India. That disowned India is also a quasi-mythic entity that defines Pakistan’s boundaries and origins, loves and hates, and its past and future. The official India of Pakistan is actually a desperate defence against facing the unofficial India that Pakistanis carry within themselves. That unofficial India
contaminates
and
subverts
Pakistan
everyday. Likewise, Indians also live with a home-made ghost, called Pakistan. Explaining the official ideologies of the Indian and Pakistani states, and the unofficial cultures of both countries, Nandy called it as ‘bonding in hate’. It has two antagonistic sides that are intimately related to each other through kinship with shared but often disowned memories, like the ‘Pandavas’ and ‘Gauravas’ in the Mahabharata. Both sides see themselves as the upholders of virtue and retain the clandestine ‘Gaurava’ self to ensure final victory of justice and truth. Nandy supported the view that nationstates in South Asia are fictitious entities, and Indian and Pakistani nationalisms are artefacts. He claimed that South Asian ethnic and religious violence too can be identified as a classic instance of, what Freud might have called, a desperate panicky turning against the self as a means of exorcising the feared other.
889
Report: S P Udayakumar
As we near the end of a violent century, perhaps we should pin our hopes on the younger generation of South Asians who are less conditioned or brainwashed by the 19th-century European worldview and its obsessive preoccupation with the state. The younger generation, according to Nandy, will rediscover that the South Asian societies are woven not around the state but around the rural cultures. In the following sessions South Asianists from around the world discussed a whole array of important and timely concerns such as explaining ethnic conflicts, rethinking security concerns, the role of ‘national history,’ the concept of revenge, challenges for regional cooperation, empowering the poor, economic development, ecological concerns and so forth. However, the last two sessions of the Symposium were devoted to roundtable discussions on two specific questions: (1) How has South Asia done in the past five decades of independence?; and (2) What is in store for South Asia? As regards the first question, there was a general consensus that South Asians have not done badly, that they have retained the agency by protecting and nurturing democracy and democratic culture, that they have resisted ethnic and religious strife to the best of their abilities and have always rebound to civilized living in a much shorter time after such troubles, that they have learned many things and shed many prejudices in the past SO years, and that they have contributed something to knowledge and understanding. On the one hand, there has been a significant growth of democracy with representative rule, fully functioning parliaments, political parties, judiciary, and free press. The civil society is coming of age in South Asia. On the other hand, the crisis of governance emerged with the breakdown of law
890
has and
order, riots, and the manifest inability of addressing the needs of the people. The elites are not sure if they have answers for all the problems of the regional countries. Similarly, the crisis of the national security state has also deepened because it is not very sure about the purposes of the huge military establishment. While it will be interesting to see how this contradiction will play itself out, another complexity has just been added to the already complex South Asian scene: the economic direction of liberalization and privatization. If this will result in widespread development of all the peoples of the region remains to be seen. With regards to the second question, there were extreme forebodings. The most pessimistic one predicted that every central government in the region will go bankrupt, the population bomb will explode, and that there will be massive violence all over South Asia. Another mixed observation was that the face of the South Asian countries may not change in the next few decades if the idea that the ultimate reality of all religions is Truth is not emphasized along with the fact that all people are children of God and hence have to live in cooperation with each other. Yet another presage was that there is going to be a greater and accelerated trend toward the devolution of power. The type of politics in future South Asia could be corrupt, and Machiavellian in realpolitik-oriented, character. If the leaders at the helm of affairs show enough will and commitment to implement progressive agenda would be the crucial question. The optimistic outlooks foretold that the younger generation, inspired by the active politics of the region, will take control of things and set them right. That there are conscious efforts all over the region to reach out to other parts of South Asia and South Asians is a definite step in that direction.
Pergamon
by Elsevier
Vol. 28, No. 9, pp.
889-890, 1996
Science Ltd. Printed in Great Britain OOlf%3287/96 $15.00 + 0.0
REPORT Rethinking
South Asia
S P Udayakumar
This article reports on the 13th Annual Spring Symposium of the Center for South Asian Studies, UH-Manoa,
on ‘Rethinking
South Asia: 1947-l 997', held in Honolulu
on 9 and
10 April 1996.
The 13th Annual Spring Symposium of the Center for South Asian Studies was organized to take stock of the SO years of independence of the major countries of the region and to envision the futures of this highly volatile part of the world. Since the idea was to ‘rethink’ the region, the modern nation-state-oriented divisions were downplayed and the following broad areas of common interest of all South Asian peoples were stressed: Conflict and Governance, History and Politics, Culture and Philosophy, State and Region, and Economy and Development. Delivering the keynote address, Professor Ashis Nandy, Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for the Study of Developing Societies, New Delhi, dealt with the mythic structure that encapsulates and contextualizes the relationship between India and Pakistan. Nandy argued that there is a ‘politics of self in the politics of South Asia and it is an attempt to reconcile and negotiate with certain kinds of social forces that also have some psychological underpinnings. For Indian elites, Pakistan is the ultimate symbol of irrationality and fanaticism. This mythic Pakistan is above all a definer of Indi-
The author may be contacted at the Department ot Political Science, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, 2424 Maile Way, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA (Tel: +I 808 956 8357; fax: +l 808 956 6877; e-mail: [email protected]).
anness, a means of self-analysis and self-intervention. On the other hand, Pakistan’s India has two selves; the source of one is the official ideology of the Pakistani state, and the other is their disowned India. That disowned India is also a quasi-mythic entity that defines Pakistan’s boundaries and origins, loves and hates, and its past and future. The official India of Pakistan is actually a desperate defence against facing the unofficial India that Pakistanis carry within themselves. That unofficial India
contaminates
and
subverts
Pakistan
everyday. Likewise, Indians also live with a home-made ghost, called Pakistan. Explaining the official ideologies of the Indian and Pakistani states, and the unofficial cultures of both countries, Nandy called it as ‘bonding in hate’. It has two antagonistic sides that are intimately related to each other through kinship with shared but often disowned memories, like the ‘Pandavas’ and ‘Gauravas’ in the Mahabharata. Both sides see themselves as the upholders of virtue and retain the clandestine ‘Gaurava’ self to ensure final victory of justice and truth. Nandy supported the view that nationstates in South Asia are fictitious entities, and Indian and Pakistani nationalisms are artefacts. He claimed that South Asian ethnic and religious violence too can be identified as a classic instance of, what Freud might have called, a desperate panicky turning against the self as a means of exorcising the feared other.
889
Report: S P Udayakumar
As we near the end of a violent century, perhaps we should pin our hopes on the younger generation of South Asians who are less conditioned or brainwashed by the 19th-century European worldview and its obsessive preoccupation with the state. The younger generation, according to Nandy, will rediscover that the South Asian societies are woven not around the state but around the rural cultures. In the following sessions South Asianists from around the world discussed a whole array of important and timely concerns such as explaining ethnic conflicts, rethinking security concerns, the role of ‘national history,’ the concept of revenge, challenges for regional cooperation, empowering the poor, economic development, ecological concerns and so forth. However, the last two sessions of the Symposium were devoted to roundtable discussions on two specific questions: (1) How has South Asia done in the past five decades of independence?; and (2) What is in store for South Asia? As regards the first question, there was a general consensus that South Asians have not done badly, that they have retained the agency by protecting and nurturing democracy and democratic culture, that they have resisted ethnic and religious strife to the best of their abilities and have always rebound to civilized living in a much shorter time after such troubles, that they have learned many things and shed many prejudices in the past SO years, and that they have contributed something to knowledge and understanding. On the one hand, there has been a significant growth of democracy with representative rule, fully functioning parliaments, political parties, judiciary, and free press. The civil society is coming of age in South Asia. On the other hand, the crisis of governance emerged with the breakdown of law
890
has and
order, riots, and the manifest inability of addressing the needs of the people. The elites are not sure if they have answers for all the problems of the regional countries. Similarly, the crisis of the national security state has also deepened because it is not very sure about the purposes of the huge military establishment. While it will be interesting to see how this contradiction will play itself out, another complexity has just been added to the already complex South Asian scene: the economic direction of liberalization and privatization. If this will result in widespread development of all the peoples of the region remains to be seen. With regards to the second question, there were extreme forebodings. The most pessimistic one predicted that every central government in the region will go bankrupt, the population bomb will explode, and that there will be massive violence all over South Asia. Another mixed observation was that the face of the South Asian countries may not change in the next few decades if the idea that the ultimate reality of all religions is Truth is not emphasized along with the fact that all people are children of God and hence have to live in cooperation with each other. Yet another presage was that there is going to be a greater and accelerated trend toward the devolution of power. The type of politics in future South Asia could be corrupt, and Machiavellian in realpolitik-oriented, character. If the leaders at the helm of affairs show enough will and commitment to implement progressive agenda would be the crucial question. The optimistic outlooks foretold that the younger generation, inspired by the active politics of the region, will take control of things and set them right. That there are conscious efforts all over the region to reach out to other parts of South Asia and South Asians is a definite step in that direction.