Why the Nation is Not United, and Why that is a Good Thing

Photo by Spenser on Unsplash

Boxes. We've demonized them a lot in recent years. And unfairly so, in my opinion.

Nowadays, it's all about thinking outside the box, living outside the box, burning the goddamn box, if at all possible.

But there's nothing wrong with boxes, is there? In fact, they're quite essential. They help us store stuff we don't always use but might occasionally need, label them so they're easy to find when needed, and keep them safe.

The problem arises when we've sealed the box so tightly that, when we have put something in it that doesn't belong, we can no longer take it out and put it somewhere else.

In Defense of Categorization

Categorization – putting things in boxes and labeling them – is a useful tool, essential for our survival. And like most tools, the effect it has on the world depends largely on the wielder. It can be used both badly and well.

When you're feeling unwell, you call a doctor and not a florist. You don't stop to think about it and decide if an individual doctor will be better able to help you than an individual florist. That's categorization.

And when you hear of a violent crime and immediately decide that the person who committed it must belong to a particular ethnicity or class, without considering whether an individual from another group might be responsible, that's categorization too.

One of these could save your life, the other could get someone killed.

Categories aren't bad, but bad people can categorize. And it's these bad categorizations that I want to talk about today.

Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark

Or India. Or America. Or maybe even Britain or Brazil. Journalist and historian Gwynne Dyer said in a recent column:

“‘Homo economicus’ is dead. Long live ‘homo tribuarius’!”

Basically, he was talking about how people around the world are no longer voting for their economic interests, but rather from tribalistic sentiments of loyalty to the in-group and hatred for the out-group.

It doesn't matter what group is in and which one is out. That's cyclical, of course. And there always is a villain to throw stones at. Sometimes it's the rich, sometimes the communists. Sometimes Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, or the moon worshipers. Sometimes it's also the politicians or the police.

Basically, we want something to be angry about, and someone to be angry at. And neat categories help with that. They make it easier to be angry, because of course everything (or everyone) in a single category must be the same, or at least similar. Hence, they must all be deserving of the anger directed at that category.

Why? Because they're all in it together, of course. They're all UNITED. Your enemies always are, somehow. They have the best teamwork ever!

I grew up hearing how India was colonized by Britain because the British were UNITED, whereas India was divided and fought constantly among themselves. Never mind the fact that Britain is smaller than most states of India, which makes that comparison absurd. India cannot be compared to Britain, but it can be compared to Europe, a group of people with a similar culture (with significant differences in language, clothing, etc.) who constantly fought, killed, and married each other.

Not so united after all, were they? In fact, they were kind of just like us. And just like people all around the world. The history of Africa is largely the same, as are the histories of East and West Asia:

Lots of groups, lots of (closely related) languages, and lots of conflict.

I don't know much about the history of the native inhabitants of the Americas (before the arrival of the Europeans), but I'm willing to bet a lot of money it wasn't all that different.

Why? Because the Native Americans of the 12^th century had something very important in common with the Africans and the Europeans and the South Asians of the 12^th century. They were humans.

And humans behave rather predictably, wherever they go. They form hierarchal groups. And then they break away from those groups and form new groups and sub-groups. And then they cooperate. And fight. And people within the same group also cooperate and fight. And sometimes, they cooperate among themselves to fight a third party.

The Myth of In-Group Unity

There is no grand unity anywhere, and even the most cursory glance at history would prove that. Even within the tiny country of England, many of those who vociferously criticized the Empire were English. And the British weren't special in this regard. The (Muslim) Mughals fought each other like cats and dogs, and often teamed up with Hindu kings to fight members of their own family. These same Hindu kings later teamed up with European colonizers to vanquish their neighbors, and the Europeans in turn spared no effort – up until the 20^th century – to drive each other into the ground.

There was no grand unity within (or between) nations, regions, religions, or communities, and there still isn't. Because that is not how human beings behave. And the people of other countries and religions (and even time periods) are, in fact, human. Despite rumors to the contrary.

But it makes for a good story –

Them versus us.

Them – united, ruthless, calculating.

Us – scattered, helpless, innocent.

If only we could be more like them. If only we could get obsessed with one aspect of our identity – nationality, religion, race, sexuality – and become UNITED. Gang up against our enemies, the scary and singular THEM.

Then and only then will we be victorious. And hence, any dissent from within is of course unacceptable. Any member of our group who isn't single-mindedly obsessed with the group, who points out flaws within the group, is an obstacle in the path of that ultimate victory. As dangerous as THEM.

This is why we have been conquered by other countries, the dissenters are told. We're not UNITED. Look at the Chinese. So united. They'd never go against their own countrymen. Look at the Muslims, also united. They would never speak against their own co-religionists.

And yet, more people died in the Great Chinese Famine (1959-61), caused by their own government, than the Bengal Famine (1943-44), caused by the British rulers of India. And most of the people killed by Islamic terrorism are – surprise surprise – Muslims!

And if I'm dying, what does it matter if those killing me are part of the US or the THEM? How is it better to be killed by those who speak my language and worship my God than by those who don't?

But we like simple solutions. Who has the time to study the wide variety of causes, events, and policies that lead to conflict, victory, loss, civilizational progress, and decline? Who has time to understand the geographical, climatic, technological, and cultural factors that allowed the tiny nation states of Western Europe to colonize massive empires on five different continents?

Who has the time to analyze the reasons for the different outcomes of colonization in different places? The Asians were largely subjugated, the Africans frequently enslaved, the original Americans all but wiped out...but why? Why were the nations of Western Europe so much more successful in global conquest than those of Eastern Europe, despite fighting numerous bloody wars among themselves?

Well, the answer is a complex combination of germs, geography, disease, climate, food-habits, technology, culture, and contemporary geopolitics.

Booooorrriinggggg!

Who has time for all that, when we can have a short and simple solution that doesn't tax the mind and provides us with the requisite dose of self-righteous indignation? They were UNITED and we were not. They believed singlemindedly in their Gods and their Kings, and we were doubtful and treacherous.

So now, we must make amends, be more like them. We must define ourselves by our unquestioning devotion to our Kings and our Gods. We must become devoted nationalists, or nationalistic devotees. And if we're not? Well, then we're anti-nationals, of course!

But don't worry, it's all for the greater good. After all, how else will we take back our rightful place at the helm of the world, driving our ever-united enemies to the ground with our UNITY–XXL?

The Problem of Dissent

Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) said Azadi (freedom), and the entire nation went for a tizzy. How could they!! How will India become a superpower, if our students aren't united and nationalistic? If they don't agree with the stance of the central government and the Indian state on contentious issues such as the governance of Kashmir and the North East? Surely, this was the beginning of the end.

Thing is, JNU always was what it is today. In fact, college and university campuses around the world are and have always been variations of JNU – liberal and contrarian. The ideological tilt of JNU and its students isn't much different today than it was thirty years ago, nor has the culture changed in any significant way. If JNU didn't destroy India in the 80s, it's not going to do so now.

But JNU is just a symptom of a larger problem. And that's the problem of dissent. And despite our myths of the UNITED Imperialists and Islamists, dissent is universal, inevitable, and pervasive. Remember the Arab Spring? There has never been a society or a government in the history of the world that didn't face dissent. The difference, really, is in how they dealt with the dissenters.

In some countries, comedians earn their living by making fun of the ruling classes; in others they might be executed for doing so. Imagine a North Korean comedian calling Kim Jong-un the names that American late night comedy show hosts regularly call Trump. And there are many others like them – neither the North Korean nor the American model of governance is particularly unique in this respect.

But guess which of these countries would be more likely to experience a violent revolt wherein the ruler's head ends up on a pike? You don't get to wish away dissent, but you can often choose how you'd like it served. You can either swallow a few insults or a few bullets, but no government has ever successfully avoided both for any length of time. If you don't let your opponents shout, you'll just make them more inclined to shoot.

Ideological Bubbles and the Importance of Opposition

Dissent is not just inevitable, it is extremely important. I've always leaned relatively liberal, but I was perhaps one of the most right-wing people in my college.

Why?

Not because my views had changed in any significant way, but because, like I said before, college campuses often tend to be liberal bubbles. More so in the humanities and social science departments. I hadn't become any more conservative than I'd ever been, I was just surrounded by people who were more liberal than me.

And that's the thing with bubbles. When the loudest voices in your vicinity are saying something, it is human instinct to want to go with the flow, to not oppose the majority even if you don't always agree with what they're saying. In the distant past, our ancestors got killed for opposing their tribes. We're the descendants of the people who managed to keep their heads down and not get lynched for long enough to reproduce, so of course most of us are instinctively reluctant to oppose the majority.

The loudest voices on campus were liberal, so those who agreed with them shouted louder, and those who didn't kept quiet. Just as the loudest voices in the country today are majoritarian and ultra-nationalist. Those who agree with these sentiments are shouting louder than they ever have before, and most of the people who don't find it safer to keep quiet and not draw attention to themselves.

And that's why ideological bubbles are so dangerous, because they lead to rapid escalation and become a self-fulfilling prophecy. And this is true regardless of the ideology.

If you criticized the unfair corporate practices of a particular company at a business conference, you'll get some support and some opposition. At best, you'll get people to agree that that particular company is poorly run. But start this same discussion in a group of devoted communists, and the discourse will soon devolve into the vices of the capitalist system and then the oppressive tendencies of the capitalists/businessmen themselves.

Tell a group of campus liberals that you met an asshole who happened to be Sikh/Muslim/Christian, and at best you'll get your friends to agree that that particular individual was indeed an asshole. Start this same discussion in a right-wing WhatsApp group (we all have those family groups, be honest with yourself), and the discourse will soon devolve into the characteristic demerits of the religion and the universal vices of all its adherents.

Ideological bubbles facilitate escalation, because people are reluctant to stray too far from the group consensus. If you feel like you might encounter opposition, you'll watch what you say and refrain from saying anything extreme that'll be widely opposed. But if you think that everyone in the group already agrees with you, you'd be more likely to air your more extreme views, thus creating a feedback loop of agreement and escalation until you all agree on something that you'd never dream of saying out loud in public.

Such an ideological bubble can exist in a college campus or on a WhatsApp thread, but it can also exist in a community, a city, or an entire country. And when it does, otherwise normal, well-balanced people openly defend the large-scale imprisonment of thousands of innocent people in detention/concentration/filtration camps and the blowing up of public buildings.

People who once held bigoted and extremist views in secret are emboldened to share their ideas in public, causing more people to convert to their way of thinking. On the other hand, those who would normally have opposed such ideas feel pressured to keep quiet, for fear of being rejected and ostracized by the 'tribe'.

This kind of thing has happened over and over again in history, in all places around the world, and it'll probably happen again. No group or ideology is safe from this type of escalation, be it leftist, rightist, or anything in between. When you have too much unity and not enough dissent, systems tend to go haywire and become oppressive, regardless of whether you live in a communist country or a theocratic one. Too much ideological unity is harmful.

And this is why dissent is so important. Not because the dissenters are always right but because they help maintain the balance. They keep the ideological extremists in check.

So if you ever find yourself in the middle of an ideological conflict and don't know which side is right, choose to oppose the majority. If you're wrong, you won't do much damage. After all, most people are against you, ready to oppose you if you go too far. But if you're right, you'll help restore the balance and prevent destructive extremism, at least for the time being.

The Need to Preserve Our Culture

Public opinion is ephemeral and ever-changing. Those who think culture is stagnant and unchanging just need to read books written by people of their own country, who died a few decades before they were born. The calls to protect ‘Indian (or Hindu) culture’ are meaningless for the simple reason that there is no such thing as ‘Indian culture’. There’s only ‘urban Indian culture of 2020’ which is very different from ‘rural Indian culture of 1950’ and still more different from the Indian culture of the 1700s.

Last week, I was chatting with a young Nigerian book reviewer. We talked about our favorite books and TV shows, our experiences at school (which were surprisingly similar), and our mutual love of BBC’s Sherlock. The only differences between our ‘cultures’ were cosmetic and superficial, like her telling me how pretty she thought women looked in sarees. Hell, there is more cultural difference between me and my grandmother than there was between me and my Nigerian reviewer.

So those who fulminate on social media about preserving ‘Indian culture’ – it’s not Indian culture you’re trying to preserve but mid-20^th century middle-class culture, which would no doubt have shocked and appalled the inhabitants of 18^th century India and will probably shock and appall the inhabitants of  22^nd century India as well.

After all, in the India of two hundred years ago, it was perfectly normal (and acceptable) for a 25 year old man to marry a 10 year old girl. If present trends continue, in the India of two hundred years later (or even sooner), it would be perfectly normal (and acceptable) for a 25 year old man to marry another 25 year old man. Indian culture was never in any danger, because as long as there are people living in India, those people will have a culture. And their culture, whatever it may be, will be ‘Indian culture’.

You may well want to preserve some aspects of that culture as it exists today, but it’s silly to expect that the culture of any place will stay the same over any significant period of time. Because people never agree with each other, and there’s as little unity between generations as there is between nations or regions. 

Our descendants a couple of centuries down the line, if they still choose to call themselves Hindus, will follow a brand of Hinduism that’ll seem more alien to us than any religion currently practiced. The same is true of Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Buddhists. And there really isn’t anything that anyone alive today can do to prevent that change. Nor, in my opinion, will it be worth their time to try.

A couple of generations ago, caste was all the rage, and people went through all sorts of trouble to preserve and uphold the purity of their particular sub-caste. Most urban millennials today couldn’t care less about it. And the youth of the 22^nd century will probably be as mystified by our obsession with religion as we are by our forefathers’ emotional investment in the intricate subcategories of caste.

In this regard, India is far from being unique. Prince Harry and his American wife recently stepped down from their positions as (senior) British royals. Two hundred years ago, this would have been an important political development with repercussions around the globe. Today, it is fodder for tabloids and gossip websites. The European aristocracies have become as irrelevant as the Indian castes and a Marquess or a Kshatriya, to our children, will probably sound like the names of rare Pokémon.

The mood of the society will shift again, as it has done a thousand times before, and all the categories and subcategories we care so deeply about today will seem ridiculous and meaningless to generations to come.

This has always been true, but that has never stopped people from perpetrating unimaginable suffering in the name of silly social categories that no one will care about a few centuries down the line. Because humans may not care about the same groups and categories for very long, but we absolutely LOVE groups and categories. India was divided on the basis of religion, then Pakistan was divided on the basis of language, and the Sri Lankans fought a civil war spanning decades on the basis of ethno-linguistic differences that outsiders would be as hard-pressed to understand as the complex web of old Hindu sub-castes.

After all, if we can’t categorize people, we can’t stereotype them. And how exhausting would that be – having to see every person as an individual and judge them on the basis of their unique merits and drawbacks? I want to take a nap just thinking about it!

Exploring Universal Themes

The first beta reader I had for my latest novel, ‘The Brightest Fell’, asked me if the story was based on the Tamil/Sinhalese conflict of Sri Lanka. It wasn’t. In fact, until he asked me that question, I’d had a very vague idea about the devastating civil war that had rocked our southern neighbor for more than two decades.

But his question made me curious, and I began researching the war that led to more than fifty thousand deaths. And I can understand, after having read up on it, why he would think my story was based on that conflict – it bore some uncanny similarities with Sri Lanka’s recent history.

Here’s the thing, though. I hadn’t had Sri Lanka in mind while writing that book. I wasn’t trying to write about any particular real-world incident at all, but the closest historical parallel I’d had in mind was the partition of India. The reason why I’d unconsciously incorporated elements of the Sri Lankan civil war in the story, while knowing almost nothing about the Sri Lankan civil war, is because the elements aren’t all that different after all. The human condition doesn’t change much with geography.

Many of my readers have asked me why I don’t write about real-world places, people, and events. Well, this is why. The real world is just repeated iterations of the same universal themes. The players change, but the story remains uncannily similar, if not the same. Sometimes, the characters in the story call themselves Protestants and Catholics, sometimes Hindus and Muslims, sometimes Chechens and Russians, sometimes Tamils and Sinhalese, and sometimes Nigerians and Biafrans.

In my book, they called themselves Zanyars and Birhanis.

There are no actual communities called Zanyar or Birhani; I just made them up. And doing so allowed me to explore the themes that were common among all the above-mentioned groups and their conflicts, without having to worry about anyone feeling misrepresented or taking offense. Without anyone trying to explain to me why their case was unique and different, and how I’d know that if only I read a little more about their history (preferably written by their historians).

That’s because people tend to have blinders on when it comes to the ideology or group of their choice. They can easily spot the things that are going wrong in other countries and cultures. Hence, there was almost universal consensus in India that Trump killing the Iranian General Soleimani was an irresponsible and dangerous thing to do. There were no frantic WhatsApp messages trying to explain, at length, how Iran was part of a centuries-long conspiracy to take America down and how Soleimani was the high-priest of this ancient cult. No doctored videos of Iranians planning to destabilize and attack the US made their way into my social media timelines and inboxes, shared by friends and relatives I haven’t met in years.

Because nobody felt the need to defend the pathological beliefs and actions of a group (country) they do not personally identify with, as they did when a similar controversy broke out at home and the participants were more relatable. Nobody feels the need to defend American slavery or European colonialism but I’ve heard many explanations for why the caste system was a great idea that was later corrupted by Bad People^TM.

I write about wars and social conflict set in imaginary countries inhabited by imaginary peoples, so that my readers can judge the actions of each character not through the lens of ideological or national allegiance, but in the context of humanity and their own conscience. My heroes are often accused of being unlikeable and bigoted, and those accusations aren’t incorrect. That’s how humans are – blinded by what is close and dear to them – and they can change, grow, and learn with their experiences.

More importantly, my protagonists are never heroes. Because human beings usually aren’t, despite our penchant for deification and hero-worship. Most individuals – like most ideologies – have their own flaws and do not deserve unqualified support; or unqualified opposition, for that matter. One person (or idea) can be great in one situation and terrible in another. Policies designed to solve one problem can give rise to others, despite the best of intentions.

Support (or criticism) needs to be provided depending on the merits of a given situation and its context, and we don’t need a person or an ideology to be perfect before it can be used to solve an immediate problem. Nor do we need to keep using it (or following them) once that problem has been solved.

Politicians, after all, are just service providers. If a doctor has treated you well during a past illness but fails to diagnose you properly for a new condition, would you think twice before seeking a second opinion? Replace doctor with electrician, plumber, or hairstylist, and I think your answer will be the same. So why do we treat policymakers differently?

Opposition, Dissent, and Balance

So speak out, disagree, debate.

Take a stand, even when most people don’t agree with you. Especially when most people don’t agree with you.

And if you’re not sure what that stand should be, stand against the majority. If you’re wrong, you’ll learn quickly enough; if you’re right you’ll prevent dangerous escalation and ideological myopia.

Most importantly, don’t be united. Because nobody ever really is. Unity without dissent is a myth, and it’s a myth that has cost us dearly, in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia and a thousand other places around the world at a thousand other times in our history.

Going against the majority opinion is never fun. Intense, short-term conflict is painful and uncomfortable (which is why most people, understandably, avoid it). But it’s better than simmering, long-term degeneration. Which is the price of unquestioning unity – be it in a household, community, or country. What you allow, you encourage.

And it’s better to be the villain in a WhatsApp group than the lesson in somebody else’s history book.