| Author | Message | ||
     Zulu Side Hero Username: Zulu Post Number: 3110 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 66.68.181.197 Rating: N/A |
 Maathru bhasha vegataipoyina mudanastapu jathi manadhi | ||
| Eluri_kurradu Side Hero Username: Eluri_kurradu Post Number: 8770 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 173.30.2.223 Rating: N/A |
neekedo blog dorkinattundi pandaga seskuntunnavu ee madhya  | ||
| Zulu Side Hero Username: Zulu Post Number: 3107 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 66.68.181.197 Rating: N/A |
http://karnatique.blogspot.com/2009/09/forced-juxtaposition- theory-of-hatred.html 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. Maathru bhasha vegataipoyina mudanastapu jathi manadhi |
