Globalization runs into nationalism

Way, way back on December 12, 2006, The Register-Guard published a commentary of mine on national identities.

As much as I have been a fan of globalization--my life is practically Exhibit A in arguing my case--I have always been concerned and worried about the loss of identity that many people fear.  Eating Mexican food is one thing, for example, for some people, but Mexicans moving to this country is not welcomed because of a "dilution" of national identity.  Marginalized groups want to firmly establish their identity because otherwise they lose political power and, along with that, even an erasure of their identity.

I have been thinking about that commentary in light of the ongoing war that putin has launched against Ukraine.  He falsely believes that there is no Ukrainian identity.  Ukrainians are fierce about how different they are from Russians.

So, here is that commentary from December 12, 2006:
******************************************************

To understand ethnic and religious tensions in faraway places such as Iraq, Lebanon or India, we need look no farther than our own northern neighbor – Canada. 

The Canadian parliament recently acted to formally recognize the Francophone province, Quebec, as a nation within Canada. Prime Minister Stephen Harper introduced the motion, which passed overwhelmingly. 

The move explicitly recognizes the ethnic nationalism that has been the driving force behind two failed referenda that called for a formal separation of Quebec from Canada. 

For years Quebecers have maintained that their language, history and cultural traditions were being systematically ignored, put down and forgotten by Canada's English-speaking majority. It's like Rodney Dangerfield's complaint: "I don't get no respect." Quebecers felt so intensely about this that in 1980 and 1995, they voted on proposals to formally secede from Canada. The prime minister's hope is that this formal recognition of Quebecers as a nation within Canada will preclude further independence efforts. 

Recognition of Francophone Canadians as a nation within the country comes almost 140 years after the country was formed. 

This recent development is a reminder that humans value and cherish their respective identities – in this case as members of a group with its own shared language, history and cultural traditions. Once we grasp this, we can begin to understand why there is a great deal of commotion along ethnic and religious lines in many other parts of the world. 

Take the case of Iraq. During World War I, the Ottoman Empire supported Germany, and after the war the empire essentially was carved into territories, one of which was the territory of Iraq. Iraq was placed under British control, as per the agreement developed by the League of Nations – the forerunner to the United Nations. 

Iraq then went through different forms of government, many of which were externally imposed. The modern-day Iraqi republic was established in 1958 after a military coup. In 1979, Saddam Hussein emerged as the president; as they say, the rest is history. 

During all this time, the many "nations" within Iraq not only were ignored by the government, some were in fact systematically abused because of their culture, language and religious beliefs. 

The Kurds are one of Iraq's ethnic groups; as a people, they also are scattered across Iran and Turkey. They want to be recognized as a "nation" as much as Quebecers did. Saddam's government killed many Kurds simply because they were Kurds. 

Turkey does not want the Kurds in Iraq to gain independence because of the worry that Kurds in Turkey will demand recognition of their status or, worse, join hands with the Kurds in Iraq and form a greater Kurdistan. These "nation" issues are not unique to Iraq or Turkey. 

These are found all across the world. In Quebec, the struggle for recognition is nonviolent. Unfortunately, that is the not the case in a number of other struggles to establish national and state identities. 

And even if a people's nationality is well recognized, achieving formal statehood is not always an orderly or peaceful process. Take the case with Palestine, where violence has been endemic for decades. 

Even in Bhutan, regarded by outsiders as a Shangri-la, there are problems related to ethnicity and nationality. Ethnic Nepalese have left Bhutan in large numbers because the monarch's policies do not appear to recognize differences in the way the Nepalese look, the Hindu religion they practice and, of course, the language they speak. 

We have been so wrapped up with our fascination with globalization that maybe we assumed that ours is a homogeneous world. On the contrary, we have different languages, religions, beliefs, histories. And sometimes, people want explicit recognition of those differences. 

It has taken Canada 140 years to formally recognize that Quebecers are a nation within their country. How long will it take for the Kurds, for instance, to be recognized as a nation within Turkey? 

So, let us use the opportunity that Quebecers have given us and understand not only the thirst for recognition, but the similar feelings that various "nations" have in all corners of the world. This recognition is a fundamental step in achieving peace and stability, particularly in the violent Middle East.

At least they built the railways!

“No man ever went to the East Indies with good intentions.” Wrote Horace Walpole.  As in no European man went to the East Indies with good intentions.  They went to plunder and colonize.  And they largely succeeded.

They stole everything that they could, and left their imprints on the lands.  They loved plundering so much that they even adopted "loot" into the English language:

One of the very first Indian words to enter the English language was the Hindustani slang for plunder: “loot”. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, this word was rarely heard outside the plains of north India until the late 18th century, when it suddenly became a common term across Britain.

The colonizers succeeded in so many ways including how their languages spread around the world.  Instead of English, French, and Spanish being provincial languages,  they are now global.  A rich language like Tamil, with its long history, struggles to maintain its life against English.  Here I am, a Tamil by birth, blogging in the English language, while living in what was once a colony of Britain, after having immigrated from a country that was also a British colony!

Back in the old country, we used to say that at least it was the British that colonized us, and not the large-scale killers and torturers like Belgium or even the Netherlands.  France's unwillingness to let go of Algeria reminded us about the hollowness of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. 

Further, the British built up the railways and dams and canals and ... of course, we conveniently overlooked the fact that the British did that to make the plundering that much easier for them!

Britain gets off rather easily compared to its continental counterparts who went around colonizing lands and people in the other inhabited continents.  It is not that the British were saintly; recall Jallianwala Bagh?  They had a good public relations system, and they also knew how to cover their tracks, like how they did in Kenya: "Operation Legacy was intended to ensure that “the British way of doing things” would be remembered with “fondness and respect” – that the conduct of its imperial retreat would be seen as exemplary."

"The British Empire was much worse than you realize," writes Sunil Khinani in The New Yorker. 

[The] British Empire’s baneful legacy may well have been deeper and more diffuse than that of any other modern state. Was British liberal imperialism, given the extent of the damage it inflicted over generations, a more malevolent influence on world history than even Nazi Fascism?

The empire retracting back to the cold islands in the northern seas did not clear the slate, so to speak, in the former colonies.  The multi-generational legal system that was in place in the colonies became a part of the legal system in the newly independent countries, and often this had disastrous results for people:

Ghanaian leaders, shortly after their country became independent, in 1957, cribbed from British preventive-detention laws the right to detain citizens for five years without trial. In the nineteen-sixties, Malaysian officials, building on British models, enacted laws permitting suspects to be detained indefinitely. In the seventies, Indian leaders used colonial emergency powers embedded into their constitution to censor the press, jail political opposition, clear urban slums and even sterilize their residents.

I used to think that the "emergency" years in the seventies were India's darkest as an independent democracy.  But, the virulent anti-minority politics and policies of contemporary India make a saint of Indira Gandhi and her power-hungry "emergency" rule.

Why is such a discussion important?  We need to get the inaccuracies out of our past stories, and accurately present the colonizers for what they did; else, going forward will not be easy.  As Pankaj Mishra wrote in a different context: "The old question—what is a country, and what is its basis?—has become menacingly relevant long after it appeared to have been settled."

Ruffalo and Rasgullas

In the years past, I never jotted down birthdays in any calendar, and always operated from memory .... but, these days I check the cheat-sheet for what's ahead.  I suppose getting older means that some of the particulars fade away.  

There once was a time, not too long ago, when I was actually, seriously, interested in the specifics.  Now, it is almost like I have a different brain altogether.  My brain does not want to deal with fine details anymore.  

The other day, when watching a movie, I immediately recognized the actor.  But, what was his name?

Well into a few minutes of the movie, the old brain continued to work on the puzzle.  Finally--and thankfully--it clicked.  "Mark Ruffalo," I yelled out.

The younger me would not even have thought about this. Almost as a reflex, I would have remarked, "oh, Mark Ruffalo."

I am not my younger self.  However, this does not bother me as much as the balding head does!  

I am convinced that it is not a short-term or long-term memory issue, but merely reflects changing priorities.  The name Mark Ruffalo itself is not important anymore.  Life is not a game of Jeopardy!  As simple as that.

Growing older is wonderful that it is like sifting life through a sieve and the brain then figures out what is important enough to retain.  Instant recall is no longer an urgency.  The stories are what matter.  Good stories. Bad ones. Tough ones. Hilarious ones. Tragic ones.  Stories nonetheless.

Of course, the focus on the story and the sifting away of finer details like names or numbers means that slowly the stories morph in the re-tellings.  

When I was younger, it was fun for us kids to even point out the inconsistencies in my grandmother's stories, to which her response often was தப்ப பிடிச்சு வாயில போடு (literally translating to "catch the mistakes and put them in my mouth" to imply that we kids had nothing better to do than do something that silly.)  Like my grandmother, here I am re-telling stories that may or may not be consistent with the previous versions.  I now know that aging does that!

I wonder how my own stories will morph if I get really old.  What will happen to a story like the one about the number of gulab jamuns that I had in one sitting, during my undergraduate days?  I had twenty-two at the all-you-can-eat lunch at our favorite Gujarati restaurant.  

It might become a story of 32 jamuns; maybe the city name will change from Coimbatore to Calcutta; instead of my undergrad days it becomes a story of when I started working; perhaps the gulab jamuns become rasgullas in the re-telling.  

But, dammit, I will have stories. And they will be mine.

And, to make things easy, maybe I will begin to wish everybody a happy birthday on the first of every January.