The Forced Juxtaposition Theory of Hatred

In the previous post, we touched upon Dr. B. R. Ambedkar's insight that forcefully juxtaposing different linguistic peoples into a common cycle of participation such as government creates hatred between those peoples who have no natural antipathy to begin with. This is an immense statement, which I will refer to as the forced juxtaposition theory of hatred between groups. According to the theory, any sort of forced juxtaposition thwarts and converts to hatred the organic evolution of cooperation and friendship between diverse groups.

For example, Hindi speakers and non-Hindi speakers would have organically evolved mutual cooperation and friendship if only the Constitution of India did not forcefully juxtapose these two groups in every office of the central government. Because the Constitution accords Hindi a higher status than every other Indian language, Hindi speakers had to be physically moved to non-Hindi speaking states, bringing them in forced juxtaposition with the speakers of other languages. While there is no natural antipathy between Hindi and non-Hindi groups, such antipathy was created by forced juxtaposition. The Hindi speakers not only came to other states, but came as higher-ups in an artificially created hierarchy. This made matters worse - it increased the speed at which hatred builds.

Doesn't organic evolution involve juxtaposition? Of course, it does. But that juxtaposition is not forced. That's why it's called organic. Organic evolution does not involve the official sanction of a government which can employ the resources at its disposal for the acceleration of the juxtaposition. On the other hand, it involves a case-by-case upholding or rejection of whatever is perceived by the groups themselves as worth upholding or rejecting.

A good example of organic evolution is, perhaps, the widespread acceptance of the Salwar Kameez - a Northern attire - almost all over India. Within 50 years of the birth of political India, it became the attire of choice for young women all over India without government intervention. Another example is food - the spread of South Indian food in North India and vice versa. Now, imagine the Constitution of India calling Salwar Kameez as the National Dress for Women or Idli as the National Breakfast years ago and the kind of opposition and hatred such a statement could have excited. First of all nobody can predict what will find acceptance and what will not; and secondly, the very forced imposition would have ensured widespread protests and consequent rejection. Another example to show the difference between organic evolution and forced juxtaposition is the difference between a Hiuen Tsang coming to India as a traveler and student on the one hand and on the other, a Chinese military attack on Jammu and Kashmir. The first is organic evolution, the second forced juxtaposition.

It is under similar circumstances that Rabindranath Tagore rejected the very concept of a Nation. To him, Nationalism was a way of thwarting and converting to hatred the organic evolution of cooperation and friendship between two peoples. While M. K. Gandhi, the champion of Indian Nationalism, openly asked for the rejection of everything British (including education), Tagore saw that as harmful to both Indians and Britishers. Tagore was very much for the furtherance of what he termed as Society, which is a natural regulation of human relationships, so that men can develop ideals in cooperation with one another - whether they're Britishers or Indians.

Thus, as per Tagore, while Britishers and Indians could have organically evolved a system of cooperation and friendship, politics in the garb of the Nation created hatred between the Britishers and Indians - hatred which ultimately creates a world broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls. While organic evolution brought the British to India as traders, politics and the application of force by the British Nation created a rift between them and the Indians. Once the British Nation got involved in this part of the world, it obtained official sanction of the British Government which could employ the resources at its disposal for the acceleration of the juxtaposition. It is then that juxtaposition became forced instead of organic. It is then that cooperation and friendship turned into non-cooperation and hatred.

Thus, ladies and gentlemen, we have two options: the first is an organic evolution of cooperation and friendship between diverse groups - especially language groups - in India. The second is forced juxtaposition. The first is cooperation and friendship. The second is non-cooperation and hatred. The choice is yours.


Clangorous said...

@ Kiran Rao,
Kudos !!! Awesome article, I hope atleast now Hindi Imperialists and Hindi Slaves understand the motive behind these articles.

പാറ്റ്സ് said...

It's such an easy task to create peace in India. One only has to make English the only language or any Indian language elligible for government jobs applications. Let Hindi people feel our hatred about the inequality in these regards. Let them feel them on earth first and then in hell later.

ರೋಹಿತ್ ಬಾ ರಾ said...

Just thinking aloud -

Lets assume we had organic evolution in place in India and not the forced juxtaposition. So now there's nothing like a national colour, nothing like a national flower, nor anything like a national bird, or whatever. Of course no myth about a national language exists today.

Now organic evolution could still lead to the same amount of inter-state immigration as we find in the India around us. Because the evolution of states and inter-state relations has been organic in nature, are we thinking there would be higher gelling happening between migrant and original inhabitants of a particular state? They're inherently not belligerent, okay, but how could this organic evolution lead to a good gelling, or even compromise? Just being the devil's advocate here..

For instance because the juxtaposition is organic, how will that make the individual groups (linguistic states in our Indian context, right?) exhibit unison in opinion about some issue which they have to either uphold or reject? How could that be different from how it is Today? So are we saying, opinions of individual groups might sway (this way, or that) based on whether juxtaposition was organic or forced?

Raj Kumar said...

I apologize for posting an unrelated comment.

"The two ancient populations are the Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and the Ancestral South Indians (ASI). The study was based on genetic analysis.

While the Ancestral North Indians (ANI) group is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, the Ancestral South Indians (ASI) are not related to any group outside India, notes the paper."

Jockey said...

@ Raj Kumar,

Thanks for the good link!

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...