#10 Why don't we define our National Interest?

Or, alternately, The Interest of the diverse People of India?

Photo by Hannah Busing on Unsplash

Chetan Bhagat is one of my favourite writers. He is not a brilliant novelist and award winner, but he comes across to me as a sincere well wisher for all Indians. Note, not just the country. But all the diverse people of India. Today’s Times of India published his centre piece elucidating how to win over Indians through focusing on seven common key features.

But after reading this and almost every such piece on a unified approach in papers and magazines over the past decade, I am puzzled that we haven’t homed onto a common goal or at least a small set of goals which can unite us diverse people in our efforts.

This common goal has been sometimes mentioned as the national interest.  But mentioned very very rarely,  appearing almost as if it is something that cannot and should not or need not be analysed and discussed. But why is that?  Is it so obvious? Or is it so nebulous that it would lead to unending arguments and vicious side-taking? Or that discussion on it would only confuse us further? Or because it would be likened to what the nationalists want? Well-wishing nationalists, who believe forcing oneness on people will unite us. But who unintentionally ignore the possibility that excessive emphasis on this may turn them into fascists and end up causing violence and suffering?

But surely, what is the harm in at least venturing a guess and discussing it peacefully? Among a group of balanced and knowledgeable people who all wish our countrymen well?

The dictionary defines the  word ‘Nation’ as a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. In India’s case, our common Hindu lineage from the first millenia seems to bind us culturally. But since Hinduism also provided for hundreds of gods and numerous paths to them, and since distinct dialects and languages and customs developed over the centuries, we now have a layer on top with immense diversity and even conflicting religious beliefs. Some of these beliefs are from foreign lands, but the practice by their followers still holds distinct features of the Hindu way of life. So, maybe, India could be better described as a federation of  diverse nations with common descent? And where the people, deep down, are more passionate for their diverse and unique identities than they are for the geographically defined country?  A veritable nation of nations?

So, what is this common goal that cuts across all the people of our nation of nations? Which we could term The Interest of the People of India or simply, the People’s Interest? Bhagat and many others say economic growth. But a single-minded focus on that may well cause iniquity and inequality especially in today’s technologically disruptive world. Some go the other extreme, stating that the Constitution covers all angles adequately. But, isn’t it  possible that it is so elaborate, that it dilutes our focus?   So let’s try the middle path with a collection of a set of goals. Let’s say :    Economic development, becoming a regional and then world power ( frequently articulated of late), security from external aggression and internal unrest, literacy, ease of living, self-reliance, well-being of the people, technological progress and national pride. 

That’s a long list. But if we look closer,   we might be able to discern some which contribute to a common umbrella and some which are the fruits of it. Economic development, security and many others seem to contribute to what the Takshashila Institution, Bengaluru stated as ‘Well being of the People of India’.  To me, it seemed an excellent summation. Interestingly, they also added ‘The development of ….’ before the statement. I wondered why.  Could it be because people, the poor especially, can also achieve well being by falling into reclusive, spiritual renunciation of the material world?  Which could lead to a ‘lack of hunger’.  One of the realities that Bhagat believes is affecting our younger citizens today? And that would not be a good way to go. Right?

So, let’s take Takshashila’s  ‘Development and Well-being of the People of India’ and see if it fits well. Do all the goals contribute to this umbrella?  Can we become a regional and then world power,  first and then use that to achieve well being? How?  By influencing global trade and geo-politics in India’s favour?  Will that go well with other countries ? What about national pride?  Can we fill ourselves with national pride before and then achieve full literacy and eradication of poverty? Or will national pride arise afterwards?  Surely, it has to be the latter. Because literacy and eradication of poverty will lead to a surge in domestic output (GDP), which in turn will bring in prosperity and greater scope for world class achievements which make us proud. Am I right?

So, to me ( and you may well disagree),  the People’s Interest could look like this :

I can visualise your reactions : Too simplistic !!!  Are you qualified to make such a chart?? How dare you mess with our minds when you don’t have the aukaat   ( position in society) to do so?? ;-)

But when you get over this audacity of mine, and are in a mood to mull this over, do let me know your forthright views.

Does such a focus help us as a country?   Do share