Colonial Mind, Emigration, and Identity

Twenty-first Century brought forward a new dilemma for Indians. To be or not to be Indian, when one is living in a country away from India, the motherland. The question attracted attention from newspapers, internet portals, and Indian Twitterati. Bobby Jindal aka Piyush Jindal brought this debate to the front, which had been simmering in the back burner for sometime. There are two theories: One side argues that maintaining close connection with one's Indianness is important, the second side argues that an Indians must completely forget one's Indianness and immerse in the culture of the land wherever they may be living.

Both theories are wrought with problems. when one is away living in a different country, the person is not Indian in the full sense of the term, and only belongs to the cultural heritage of India. The middle way to foster this had already been shown by previous immigrants of colonial era now living in the Caribbean Islands, South Africa, and Fiji. The Caribbean Indians are as comfortable with Calypso music as with Bollywood dance numbers.

The second theory of disowning one's cultural heritage to assimilate completely with a culture of the land one is living at any time is also wrought with problems in addition to the point that it may be difficult and may not come easily for some. One serious issue that comes up with such attitude is if one is so uncomfortable with his own background and cannot live comfortably with his own heritage, how can he be expected to be open minded about myriad of other cultures that may exist around him. And what kind of a leader that one make such person. Twenty first century world brought migrations across the world. There are few places in this world that may be considered homogeneous culturally these days. In Bobby Jindal's case his becoming American mean a very narrow definition of  what American means, which comes with English, and converting to Christianity. In his opinion Asian immigrants are lacking in Christianity, while other Latino immigrants are lacking in English. 

His proposal for Americanness, English and Christianity, is matter of simple life for millions of Indians living in India already, almost every educated person in India speaks decent English, and India has sizable number of Christians dating as far back as early centuries of first millennium C.E. There are a number of Indian Christians living in America as well.  Same is true with Latinos in numerous countries, they speak decent English and are Christians by faith. If this is what defines Americanness in Bobby Jindal's mind, then there are legions of others that are better qualified for such honor than him. Is he ready to call everyone of those who speak good English and is Christian an American then?

Another issue with such disowning one's culture to claim assimilation into another culture is a remnant of colonialism. Neo-Indian culture of nineteenth and twentieth centuries is characterized by learning English language, dress, manners and customs, which sometimes may include conversion to Christianity. Speaking English and dressing as English gentleman is seen as cultured and civilized self. Colonial life in the continent of America is also known for altering the life of natives and landscape of the region forever. Numerous languages perished along with annihilation of tribes, plants, birds and animals. However, there is a modern quest to discover lost languages and cultures, and protect the animals and plant life of the world. It is common in twenty-first century, for humans to live in different countries, but still be able to live comfortably as one-self. The greatest advantage of twenty-first century global world is multi-culturalism, which represents unity in diversity. If Bobby Jindal had difficulty embracing multi-culturalism then he is living in the past a world of early 19th century rather than the twentieth century.

It enriches a country when multiple cultures exist in a country with uniform civil code. Problem ensues when some cultural groups ask for preferential treatment or separate family courts based on their cultural sentiments. Such preferential treatment should not be meted out to any group. Even though the cultures are different they must all respect the law of the land and abide by it, and work for the progress of the country. That's what the leaders should be asking for from their citizens, not homogeneity. Multiplicity is the feature of the twenty-first century. 

Embracing multi-culturalism and multiple selves is the way to go. Living with narrow definitions and identities is helpful to a certain extent, but learning more than three languages, knowing about world cultures and religions is also important in the 21st century. After all no one is living on self-isolating island.