My special case

There is an overwhelming sense of being special when you are an Indian man living abroad. Those who grew up in India bear the identity of a colonial people. As kids we were meant to feel through TV and books ( which mattered more when there was no internet ) that the British had conquered India over past centuries, had enslaved its people and ruled by dividing them into factions. An Indian man often lives with an immense sense of responsibility to revive this old, golden past - which was momentarily manipulated for empire-building interests.

In doing so, he has a difficult task - to connect the two disparate worlds - one where there was no English influence and one where there is nothing but English ideas.

Such a conflict thankfully hasn't resulted in civil wars in India as yet. There are two reasons for it - one is modernity which is liked by Indians and the second is that despite the nationalist spirit of colonial struggles, the migration of the Anglophile elite to the West was not as massive and the old colonial structure was retained as such (particularly so if you believe Perry Anderson - who rightly points out that 70% of Indian constitution is Govt. of India act from 1935).

There was in fact a lost paradise with the departure of British. The connection of the modern world with the native was broken and what was left to Indians was this new uncertain world - a world  probably as uncertain to the West.  Here, all of a sudden there was no foreign rule, no unanimous ruler was possible. The memories of having been "divided" persisted and the confidence to rule, invent or lead still required approval from foreigners. The English language, culture and institutions were to remain of importance - because shunning it completely would imply turning away from modernity.

The ambiguous connection of the Indian mind with the British is therefore born of the necessary evil of a loss. The attachment with English rule amidst India's elites was not shaken off after India achieved its independence from the empire - thus despite all the nationalist propaganda, the attachment with things English among Indians remained as a private music amongst many.
 
When an Indian travels abroad, he often doesn't know that the "fact" about past riches of India - taught in Indians schools is completely unknown to the West. India, was always a country ridden with caste and poverty, it is widely assumed. The private music is therefore secluded even further - since the memories of colonial rule in West aren't of cooperation or education, but really of armies and subjugation.

This continued obsession with power in the West - often presents Indians abroad with only two choices - one is to completely reject the delusions of the past and avoid issues which their schizophrenic attachment with India's past can bring. The other choice, is to completely embrace this private music and start viewing English influence itself as one of the many traditions of India. These choices are just a restatement of the already present conflict amongst Indians.

I myself have gravitated towards the latter choice - not for any other reason than my commitments to my family. For me to completely reject the attachment with India would mean rejecting my Indian family - who is subject to the very propaganda and ignorance that I complain about. The choice to embrace humanity over nationality is far easier for me than many others I know.

I think it is important to see the condition of immigrants in this light - since it explains the issues with national origin in the West. Being from a non-Western world prevents you from becoming a good soldier - and hence an ideal citizen of the country. Historically, loyalty to the kings is where ideas of nationality come from. So in the post-colonial world, I believe, no amount of integration or education can make every human within a certain boundary the part of a nation that is believed in by the majority. The nation itself often compromises its historical definitions to assimilate the new entrants.

The dilemma, which the Indian faces, is thus not a unique condition of post-colonials. Regardless of where we come from, we all face the  dilemma-  whether our notions of humanity can be superseded by the notions of nationality. Many of us make up their minds but others either avoid the question or end up choosing humanity over nationality.

The choice is false one, in my opinion. Outside of the world of armies and football teams, what difference does nationality make anyway? Besides what kind of a country is it where you have to compromise on values of humanity? India, UK or US - where I have lived so far, don't ask you this question directly. You read about certain radical view-points in the news, run into flag-bearers when there is football or cricket match and get back to life as usual. No one, thankfully, has ever imposed a certain agenda on me except through bad writing.

The conflict itself is therefore a continued state of existence. The special case of Indians, which requires a rather false belief in India's glorious past, is actually a projection of its difficult present. In reality, belief in a golden past is hardly a special case for Indians - only a sign of modernity that creates a conflict between power and equality, between hierarchy and humanity.