Theory of State — Identity
Paul Graham in his succinct essay explains how it is difficult to discuss politics or religion without the debate being degenerating resulting in a futile exercise . The reason Paul concludes is that humans “identify” themselves with these labels. Its lot easier to someone to believe that they know about Democracy or Islam for that matter — just because they are born in it . Its not difficult to miss Paul’s argument, these are specialized subjects that require sufficient effort to know & understand these topics .
Confusing democracy with the right to vote, anonymity provided by easily accessible internet & assumed “free tools” such as Facebook and Twitter — have successfully converted most of them into “experts of everything”. As Paul describes ; there is no threshold of defining expertise in the fields of politics or religion, conflating the problem of Identity .
Identifiers that we use for ourselves, to associate with our tribes come in many forms & shape — They can be racial “White Caucasian” , “Afro-American “, Communal — “Hindu”, “Muslim” or “Buddhist” , Casteist — “ Brahman “, “Khsatriya” or “Shudra” or it could be class as well “Aristocrat “, “Workers” & “Peasants”. Politics & Religion are topics that require specialization and mere association does not make an expert out of anyone .
Politics for the most part of recorded human history was “survival of the fittest “. Rulers & leaders had to slug it out in the field, mastering their war strategies , simultaneously ensuing internal conflicts are avoided & the subjects or the “Praja” is let alone in peace. The council of ministers were selected. To be a clergy & opine religious views — a strict regimen was followed. There obvious benefits of birth & nobility —uncertainties in the environment ensured only the best could lead ; while others wilted away . Rather it suffices to state — men were trained & groomed to hold positions based on their expertise.
In today’s post modern times — proliferation of mass programs has increased literacy rates, however the lines between the educated & uneducated have blurred . The innate “fight” response is exploited by spreading rumors & mobs can lynch kidnappers & smugglers merely on the basis of suspicion . The messages get amplified — with supposedly “free” tools such as facebook, whatsapp or twitter . (It’s time to look at the advertising model of social media tools — however we will save that discussion for some other time ).
Subversion is now very easy. Analytical tools & exploitation of behavioral psychology are giving the power to subvert democracies. Undoubtedly these advancements allow manipulation at scales never before to handlers& marketers, nevertheless it would be insane to dismiss & put the blame squarely on “tools”.
While politicians are adept at exploiting & manipulating their own kind to submission, Paul’s essay has an antidote to the conflagration , that is it is a suggestion to limit our identities.
How to limit Identity ?
From a matter of policy, what should matter a government is my citizenship. In a democratic setup such as in America, Australia, Canada or India — being born in that country automatically recognizes the child as subject of the state .
In a world that is separated by artificial boundaries — it should sufficient to be recognized as Indian . The only identity that should matter to Indians — should be that of Indian-ness i.e. Bhartiyata . For a complex country like India — that has has independent sub-cultures, an underlying identity of region such as Andhraite, Kashmiri , Gujarati or an Assamese should ease the burden of identifying oneself — for the purpose of politics .
Any further classification with respect to caste, religion or political philosophy such as right, left or center is an invitation for trouble. An Indian-Mallyali is a sufficient enough identification that defines language & culture, rather than Tam-Brahm, Jat or a Yadav. One could be a Sikh or a Muslim irrespective of which side of Sutlej river he lives — A Punjabi is Punjabi after all .
