Some disclosures first.
- This post is being written in a fit of anger
- I am Indian
- I was born into a Catholic family. My parents and my wife are practicing Christians
- I am an atheist
That out of the way, why the anger? The immediate provocations are two pieces I read earlier today morning. The first, Being Muslim Under Narendra Modi by Bashrat Peer in the New York Times. The second, Secularism is Dead by Shekhar Gupta in today's edition of The Indian Express.
I thought the NYT piece an interesting read. But, quite honestly, I'm tired of bleeding heart secularism, what the rise of the Right Wing means, and why "minorities" ought to be protected.
Shekhar Gupta's argument is an interesting one as well. But I suspect a bout of intolerance embedded in the piece. The kind of intolerance stoked by too much "minority appeasement". This is the kind of intolerance that terrifies me. Allow me articulate where I'm coming from.
I come from a school of thought that believes merit triumphs adversity. As Martin Luther King Jr famously said: The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. To my mind, that explains how Babasaheb Ambedkar, a man born into the Mahar community, or "untouchables", got to draft the Indian Constitution, perhaps one of the finest in the democratic traditions of the world.
That also explains the rise of the now much reviled Dr Manmohan Singh, the first Sikh to the highest office in the land. Like Dr Ambedkar, he grew poor and earned a decent education on the back of his scholarly capabilities, not his minority status. For the record, I have to say this. For all his frailties, I think posterity will thank Dr Manmohan Singh for the reforms he unleashed.
The India we live in now is a creation of men like these, as much as they are creations of Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru, part of the "majority community" (How I hate these politically correct terms!).
So how did India comes to be hijacked around discourses that constitute the "minority" and the "majority"?
Allow me put my personal experience into perspective. Because I was born into a practicing Christian family, my parents gave me a "Christian" name. For better or for worse, my identity is now "Charles Assisi". The cross I carry with this name manifests itself when I introduce myself. Often times, after the mandatory "What do you do?", a cursory "So, you're a Christian?" follows.
In the first instance, how does that matter? But my name places me in a ghetto. The insinuation as I have come to realize over the years is that I am a lesser Indian than somebody with an Indian name--or to put it in bluntly, a "Hindu" name.
I've been the subject of idiotic questions like "Did you learn English early because you were born Christian?"
That I enjoy Western Classical Music is attributed to my being a "Christian" when truth is I grew up on a staple diet of Malayalam films.
I'm slotted as a drinker when truth is I am a teetotaler (Yes, I used to drink until a few years ago much like anybody else from the "majority community").
It is taken for granted meat is consumed abundantly at home. Fact is, I do. At home though, most of my family rarely consumes meat. My brother is a vegetarian in the finest traditions of the Jain community.
The Congress assumes my vote for granted, when fact is I find the politics it practices as obnoxious as that of the BJP.
I find it incredible when people ask me why are my daughters called Nayantara and Anugraha. "How did a Christian give his daughter's Hindu names?"
Nayantara means "The star of my eye". What if I had called her "Stella del mio Occhio" instead?
Anugraha means "A blessing". What if I had called her "Benedicta"?
Would the same question have been asked of me? These aren't "Hindu" names. These are Indian names-- the India I was born into.
That is why I find my name alien. "Charles" is English and "Assisi" is Italian. I've often asked my parents why did they name me Charles. The stock answer is because my grandfather was called that and family tradition demands the first born be named after his grandfather. As for how did Assisi come about, I have no clue. I suspect it was decided by some Catholic priest from a foreign land who converted my ancestors to the faith.
But like I said earlier, for better or worse, this name, I have to live with. This is now my identity, my cross to bear, and the stereotypes that come with it. I am reconciled to living with it. What I can't reconcile with is how my name is being twisted to slot me as a "minority".
I didn't demand "minority" status. I don't want it either. I want no special privileges. I want to be known as my own man, who made it on his own. And I know how to make it on my own. I want to be respected for what I am and what I am capable of.
That is why I squirm when political and religious leaders from the so-called minority communities demand protection and assurances are offered their "interests will be taken care of". That is also why I get horribly upset when I'm told the "freedom" I enjoy is because the "majority" thought it only appropriate I deserve that freedom.
I don't want anybody to either take care of my interests or protect my freedom. I know how to take care of both.
As Virginia Wolf famously wrote in A Room of of One's Own: "Lock up your libraries if you like; but there is no gate, no lock, no bolt, that you can set upon the freedom of my mind."
