I've been reading Al Qaeda by some Mr Burke & simultaneously witnessing two events:
- Racism against Indians in Australia
- radicalism in India, (almost) single party government elected in India & the internal strife in one of the largest Hindutva parties...
Al Qaeda is a blandly written book, but an interesting (though I dont know how true) resource on terrorism & radicalism in Middle East & Pakistan. The author puts Pakistan in the centre of the entire terrorist movement, something I have never come across before. The birth of terrorism arising from the discontent of local peoples with the rulers who are willingly or unwillingly allowing western countries to control their resources & eventually lives is documented well in the book. The entire burden of the rise of terrorism is attributed to the cold war between USSR & USA in Afghanistan, subsequently spreading to other nations due to western corporate interests in Middle Eastern oil & business opportunities. The author appeals that local people have been uprooted from their traditional lifestyles & regions due to western intervention and that is the root of terrorism. The people have lost the only ideology they lead their lives with & do not connect to the western society, hence, they try to forge a pseudo-society based on the ideals that they should have followed - be it religious, social, geographical or cultural. When Westerners look at these definitions, they brand them as pagan, derogatory and even blasphemous. The entire problem lies in the increasing interaction between people of different cultures.
I tried to apply this perspective to the Indian scenario, and unsurprisingly, it works well. The urban youth is born in a Western style society and does not relate to the traditional idioms. On the other hand those living in non-westernized parts of the country are being forced to live in increasingly western / foreign societies as people migrate from rural to urban & native to westernized areas, torn from the culture that they have always known & seeing it disappear. The word western here is used in the social context (& has no geographical attribute). When these two different kinds of people are put in the same place, there ought be a friction. Those who fear the foreign cultures then try to create a pseudo-ideology that they want to cling to, in absence of their original one. When they find they cannot live on that ideology in isolation, they try to force it on others,and thus result attacks on discos, morally correct dress codes, etc. Truth be told, its just a wrong-headed attempt to assimilate oneself in a modern Indian urban society.
Apply this example to modern day Australia and one can see the frustration of the local unemployed youth at the Indian students who (usually from higher middle class families) flaunt latest gadgets while working at lesser pays. The Indian lifestyle is distinctly different, and somehow the students manage to save for things they aspire, by saving on daily rations (thats what i know, & i may be wrong). Whatever the reason, local youth increasingly feel they are unemployed and pushed lower in the class order due to such foreigners. Thus they try to rebel, bully, etc etc. The Indian students have some kind of an association, is there one for locals???? There is no representation, and that i believe is the underlying flaw, denying any chance of a civilized dialogue.
So how does one assimilate people from two or more drastically different cultures? Its a very tough question, but one of prime importance. I think the first step is to avoid alienization of any culture. People rise voilently when threatened, and that must be avoided at all costs. It is important to note that different people feel threatened in different ways, and that needs to be studied well by anthropologists / sociologists / psychiatrists.
The second point is to have complete representation of all kinds of people. Unless that is achieved, one cannot hope for a dialogue, as the Australian example might show.
If the people feel they are being represented / heard, the tendency to resort to violence is reduced. One can easily see the opposite in terrorist activities where people feel their leaders are not representing them, and hence attack them & their collaborators.
Again, this is just one angle of the story. Ofcourse terrorism has arisen due to various other political & social factors. But the very idea of instigation lies at the root of every revolt. In a democracy like India, it is necessary (& quite easy) to provide a platform for equality. I can only imagine if the radicals who push north Indians out of Mumbai, attack discos in Mangalore are asked to help in law-making for application of their views, they will have to face a much larger issue of actually listening to the other side - something they evade during violent interactions.
Posted via email from sandylief
Posts
