Random Walk: Taj and Habib

Dear All,

I presume that by now you have recovered from the inertial effect of the bromidic monologue that I shared with you about two weeks ago. And I am confident that you did ponder about the aspect that I had asked you to.

Which aspect?

Aare baba, 'pseudo-secularism' in our intellectual circles as well as in the media. Yes, I do appreciate the fact that you have been fed quite a lot on that matter and related topics since then. Already, it seems that there is a mini-war going on in this forum regarding media with the squabble heading towards a fisticuff between 'compromise' and 'no-compromise'. 

The latter concept seems to be a bit too idealistic, isn't it? Oh yes, I can read your mind. While the former idea of 'compromise' appears to you as the 'norm' of the day. Why not? Simply go ahead and enjoy with 'compromises' in all spheres.

Who has stopped you; till you could garner the tag of 'success' in this regimented world which institutionalises 'success' by upholding the parameters of a concocted socio-economic and political value-system whereby at times, if not almost always, you are churned in the centrifuge of servility.

However, that is not the topic of discussion today.

Have you been to the Taj?

Off.....I am asking the Taj Mahal. Not the venue of the 26/11 attacks.

I received an e-mail a couple of days back which de-constructed the history of that monumental tomb; considered to be an architectural genius. So, what are we to believe? I mean, who are we to believe? Prof Oak, who declaims that Taj was not Khurram's creation for his wife Mumtaz, rather it was a Shiva temple. Or are we to subscribe to the views of medieval historians of the stature of Satish Chandra and Irfan Habib?

Kare to kya kare? To believe or not to believe?

Well, as a technocrat, I do understand your simple solution, my dost. I need to get the facts. Collate them. And thereafter analyse to get the real output.

But I must tell you that this is not as simple as a mathematical machine, that is, it is not a function with a prescribed input which necessarily shall provide an output.

To get the data, one needs to fight with the authorities and more importantly, has to fight the 'institutionalised' set of beliefs which is persisting in the psyche of the populace for centuries. To erase such a belief-value system is just not a Herculean task; in fact, it is practically, 'mission impossible'.

Furthermore, the religious undertones embedded in such a research topic would deter potential researchers from entering the combat zone in a 'secular' India.

And you know it's extremely difficult to extricate oneself from this value-belief system that the whole global-society is enmeshed in.

For a simple instance, when Mr Obama received the Nobel Peace Award, many were dumbfounded, no doubt. But many, and for that matter the number was substantial, tried to substantiate the rationale for him being chosen for the coveted prize.

Why was this so? Because it's bitterly tough to disbelieve the accepted set of beliefs. It's utterly cumbersome to disregard the accepted institutions. Hence, the institutions and the values assume a Schwarzeneggerian structure and impose themselves on our thought-processes to subvert the growth of our own microscopic intellectual processes and we depreciate to form a minion.

The Americans are masters of this craft.

It might bespeak technicality, but definitely shall not proliferate malodorousness through theoretical rancour; that Antonio Gramsci while dwelling in prison during the Fascist regime, had talked about critically analysing the capitalist value system incorporated in the Superstructure which terrorises even the Marxist 'material base'. His prognosis may be a matter of dialectical tug-of-war but I personally put a constant conscious effort not to be bewitched due to the accretion of massive "value-balls" and "institutional-footballs".

Adolf Hitler was one such character who attempted to de-institutionalise the Germanic nation in a post-war clime. How?

Well, by demolishing the accepted belief that 'war is bad'. By attacking the value systems of pluralism and democracy.

Agreed, that democracy never had a strong footing in Germany and Adolf must be thankful for that to his able predecessors. Nonetheless, it cannot extinguish the argument that democracy per se was being perceived as a viable alternative at that juncture since the victorious Allies, aided and abetted by the Americans were basking in glory in that very institution.

And democracy was making inroads into Germany through the instruments of Bolshevik Socialism and its agents Rosa Luxembourg and in a milder fashion by the Republicans who gathered at the city of litterateurs--- Weimar.

Now, I still believe that you are not a dimwit. But you ask that how did Adolf succeed in accomplishing it?

Well, by lamprophonic gibberish.................which could be translated and unnaturally uplifted to the 'level' of authenticity through the able platforms of propaganda.

The interesting aspect is, however, that Hitler himself was engulfed by a parallel set of institutions in the process of de-institutionalising Germany. That may be termed the 'institutional-subterfuge'.

Whatever, Mr Hitler, his diabolism apart, posited a theory which seems very pragmatic for India, as of today. He talked about Lebensrauum : or living Space for the German Nation. He wanted more Germans on earth, that is, more production of able-bodied, pure-blooded Aryan-Germans and for them, was needed more space to live. He envisioned Eastern Europe and Russia as his Special Living Zones (SLZs) to accommodate the new Aryans.

India, as it stands today, needs SLZs, and lots of them. Who says NO? I dare declare that I can count heads in front of me who negate the "Space Theory" for India and I promulgate that I am impotent enough to put those heads to the guillotine.

Space Theory for a Nation ostensibly deconstructs the definition of a Nation. However, it does not. It simply de-institutionalises the very concept of a Nation in a world dominated by hegemons --------both global as well as local.

If in 2035, we are slated to cross the Chinese in terms of number of heads, then there is one unequivocal solution to our woes: Space Theory.

We are no pure Aryans. Well, who are they? And where are they? They probably cannot be found in our National Museum. Nevertheless, we still need Space. Space, to accommodate a set of growing hybrid racial denominations.

The Indian state may situate itself within the confines of the present latitude and longitude no doubt, but that should not thwart us to expand our domains of values, beliefs and thoughts to other spatial locations so as to gradually fill up the population and concomitant cultural vacuum in those regions.

The future can be bright for India. If and only if, the Indians can expand beyond their territories; since a check on the population growth would mutate into a 'checkmate' for the political party trying to usher in the 'democratic move'.

Where can we move to?

You ask too many questions and that too in a single day. I need to put in some carbohydrates and proteins now. Err,,,, vitamins too.

And don't forget to welcome Mr Obama when he disembarks in Mumbai day after tomorrow. Yeah, I know you are anxious to meet him. You need that outsourcing assignment from him. But hold on, this time I am pretty confident that he has to be heavily bribed.

Chalo bye

-------------------------------------

Uddipan Mukherjee is a late riser. Still, he works 'very hard' to edit Indian Policy. By the way, he writes in diplostratics