Our founding fathers, who envisioned a country free of parochial and linguistic chest-thumping, would be thoroughly dismayed by the behavior that's shamelessly parading the streets of India. Given the current state of affairs, I really wonder if we have been hoaxed into believing that people like Tagore, Phule, Raja Ram Mohan Roy were Indians. Because looking at the current Indian populace, it is at best an anomaly that these people were born in the same geographical location that we live.
We trample each other and zealously defend our beliefs and institution - be it religion, language, culture, race, ethnicity and other stupid societal associations that one can think of. All that we need is one difference that could draw a fence between two people. Day in and day out, we have people crying out for their “own” based on one of these parameters - at the same time failing to understand the limited scope of the association that they are defending. To some it may point to the lack of critical and rational thinking - which is why everything becomes so “sensitive” to people and we all culminate into a society that is marked by appeasement of each institution - rather than a one driven by critical thought.
While each institution sparks a different kind of rage/despair among people, the question very much remains the cause for such behavior. Why does it so happen that most humans refuse to look beyond the pitfalls of each of their institutions. To a large extent I believe, this has something do with connecting your identity with that particular institution. I don’t necessarily think that people do these things to support the institutions that they claim to represent - rather they do this to merely “prove” to themselves the validity of their stand and guard their identities. For inherently, man is nothing but a selfish creature, driven primarily to defend his own self - just that in this case, the physical self has metamorphosized into “self-identity”.
Take for example, the extreme association, people carry with their languages. Language was merely meant for you to communicate with fellow humans and not to divide and certainly not to wear it as a badge of pride. Or speaking in generalities - I will protest against XYZ group because it dared to question “my” ABC group - i.e. questioned something that is essentially part of me. And once that happens the mind shuts down its critical prowess and ascends into morbid fervor to quench tribal justice.
And this to me points to a society filled with people with extreme low self-esteem - where you need these props - religion, language, ethnicity and these days, the smartphone OS platform you choose - to define your so-called identity - firstly to yourself and largely to this world. That to me represents an extreme shallow way of thinking, one that essentially boxes you in the parameters that you have defined for yourself. Think of this example - you live in your home and it naturally is very difficult for you to “question” your home - for it provides you with shelter. Similarly, I believe that we let these identities shelter our “true self” - thereby, making it difficult for us to question - firstly, the validity of these institutions in the first place and then the need to shelter ourselves with these institutions.
Finally, I guess all this boils down to the notion of pride - for some it is - “I am proud of what I do” and for most of us - “I am proud of what I am”. I guess it is the latter that is the root cause of problem. I belong to XYZ religion - it lends me my identity and thereby, I am proud of it. It is largely a circular way of thinking - and it is difficult to fit critical analysis in such a stupid logic.
