The Conundrum of Self-Identity

that is based on the merely accidental and which is not consciously chosen. - Now a little debate on the word 'consciously'.
Point 1 : To consciously choose an identity, you should be allowed and interested to know about all possible identities available in a given space. To know about all of them, it requires time. How much time can you dedicate to this effort?
Point 2: It is impossible to gather full knowledge on an identity since you are brought up as a biased person - biased to the society you live in. Now, to 'consciously choose', you also have to remove those biases. Some of these biases you would never realize, and will not be interested to know ... think about it.

Diganta,

I'm finding your "little debate" on consciousness rather strange. Your implication that time and effort expended in making deliberate choices somehow casts doubt on whether the act of choice is consciously made or not, is quite unusual--and frankly, I'm not getting the connection between the different concepts you introduce.

Point 2: Human knowledge is by its very nature contextual--not omniscient. My post demands no omniscient standard in any activity--including assessing your values and choosing your identities. Further, it is illogical to state that "consciously" choosing implies having omniscient knowledge of all your "biases" (using your word, I wouldn't use such a word). So, I don't see your point in raising Point 2.

Take an example - you want to choose your religious identity. What should you do? You should mix with people of different religion and choose? Or take the religion of the society you live in? Search for religious identity has no end at all ...

point 2 - Is clear.

Regarding your example: if you're seeking a religion to belong to, first check your premises--consciously, rationally, and deliberately. What is religion? Why do you need it? Is it founded on legitimate and justifiable belief? Does it conform to the existing body of knowledge as you know it? Find out more.

In fact, this is the way I found my own identity out from being a Christian, to embracing Judaism, to being a spiritual agnostic, to then finally reaching atheism. Notice how I chose to reject the accidental nature of my birth in a Christian family as sufficient justification for holding a Christian identity.

My current identity as an atheist is consciously and rationally *chosen*. Hence, it also is a value to me.

Point 2 was moot albeit clear.

Brilliantly written, Ergo!!
I agree with all what you have said.

I think patriotism, groupism, mob and clan identitiy are a refuge for the weak and fearful minds.

There should be unbiased exposure to all choices for a person, and freedom to choose your own values, your way of life and how you conduct yourself, provided you do not harm yourself or others around you directly.

Love and peace to all,
Ayan

"Their moral code condemns you for holding your own life and selfish interest as the standard of your values and offers in exchange the value of a nation full of undifferentiated billions, whom you are supposed to love merely because of the accidental matter that "we are all Indians, therefore, brothers and comrades!"


Very well put. It is a well-written post. And I actually agree with you! :)

Ergo: I feel your last paragraph on citizenship is impossible to achieve. It will be difficult even in a state of utopia.

Everyone is free to make his own choices based on individual likes and dislikes. Hence it is not unnatural for a person to relate to parts of multiple ideologies. Also, it is not unnatural for a person to reject certain sections of the ideology which he most strongly believes in. Finding such "tailor made" states to fit your ideology is not possible.

People also may also get "enlightened" by an alternate ideology down the line. Do you think it would be practically possible to switch citizenship based on your whims and fancy ?

I feel the word "cult" would be a better word than "citizenship" in the paragraph.

"I argue that citizenship must be chosen freely by an adult or by a child's parents for the child." Allowing parents to make a choice for their child unfortunately dilutes the entire premise of your post.

great post indeed!

(how come this hawkeye missed it?)

even though Ayn Rand and her promotion of pure selfishness is total crock, neo-liberalism writ large in nighmarish fonts.

cs: Does "selfishness" really need promotion? :) I think it just needs acceptance.

I think selfishness is just survival instinct in its evolved state.

Aditi,

You make a good point.

However, unselfishness or the ability to reach out and help without expecting anything in return, co-operation, is also an important factor in the survival of the human group as a collective entity; as opposed to the dog-eat-dog world.

CS: Don't wanna drag this but what you describe is not "unselfishness". Its empathy/ compassion, which also has an element of selfishness.

There are people who do charity out of religious or moral obligation. There are people who donate to research for cancer or multiple sclerosis coz they lost a loved one to the disease. ....would that be unselfish? No. They all have personal motives but their actions are unselfish. I feel if people have selfish motives in doing something they are actually more likely to do it better. Its actually congruous with self-identity. Human beings have to delineate a selfish, vested motive to do something really well.

Selfishness has gotten a bad name for no good reason.

Your post is fine if we are not emotional animal. No major disagreement except the last para about citizenship. I think it should be religion not citizenship.

It is not that we choose to love our parents, our country, our religion and the rest. We just love. Period. And that is our emotion. It is not subject to debate. I agree that we ought not to exploit those emotions. But without emotions life would not be worth much. If you manage to intellectulize and pick and choose, more power to you. But I don't think it is going to sell.

Being human too an accident of birth. You did not choose to be a human, it was not your choosing either. If you reject your identity and place in a family, community, religion or nation just because you did not choose them, one would logically go even one step further - why should laws of a nation be applicable to any person? Why should any person comply with citizenship duties and responsibilities of a nation? After all, nobody is given a conscious choice and every citizen is a citizen by accident of birth. It has a marking of a nice anarchy. Unfortunately, most people want order, civility, values, peace in their life - so people are willing to accept institutions that have historically delivered them. Those institutions can deliver only if people adhere to them. If people don't adhere to them, such institutions die. I am sure many such institutions have died over ages. But family, community, religion and nation have survived for ages and there must be reason why people at large find solace in them. You are not the only smart and intelligent person on this planet and certainly not the first person that has questioned the value and validity of identity based on family, religion and nation. I wish family, religion and nation could be patented so that guys like you are not allowed to have any family, practice any religion or inhabit in any nation.

kerty
I agree with you.

But sometimes I wonder whether we would not be more peaceful and harmonious if we lived in a world where religious identity is voluntarily chosen. Why should I be christian, muslim or hindu just because of my parents. Of course we are all free to change our religion. That is not the issue. The point I am trying to make is why should we impose on children our religion and brainwash them. The answer of course is that our emotional attachemnt to our religion we are passing on to our chilren, rightly or wrongly. If we treated our religion like a political party or more like a service club, it would be a much more flexible identity.

Could a child of 8 or 10 years old have a religion?

"If we treated our religion like a political party or more like a service club, it would be a much more flexible identity." -- Well said Morris!!

I have always advocated that religions, beliefs and philosphies should be treated as ICE CREAM flavours, and one should have the freedom to choose any flavour he or she likes without coercion or brainwashing.
Suppose tomorrow I get inspired by Islam, Shamanism or Zen Buddhism; I should have the full freedom to become a practising Muslim or a Shaman or a Zen Buddhist, respectively.

I also feel it's very important to open a child's mind to ALL the socities, cultures and customs of the world, as early as possible.

As for patriotism and citizenship, I have always questioned the need for countries and borders.

"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" Oscar Wilde once said.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" -- Samuel Johnson.

Also the Osho once said - humans are so stupid and foolish; creating imaginary borders and fighting and killing over them!!
Its sad and unfortunate that there are still many narrow-minded and brainwashed people in this world; due to whom the formation of a unitary borderless Earth where everybody is free to live and work anywhere (without bothering others, of course) is not yet possible.

Another point - if we are all TRULY selfish, there will be a lot of order and peace, since everybody would reason that it is not in their best self-interest to bother others, harm others interests, and disrupt peace :-)

It's a basic thing called "live and let live" -- and the key is "not to bother others as long as they are not bothering you". If we see followed this statement purely logically, nobody would ever even start bothering each other!!

Love and peace to all,
Ayan

I was simply referring to religious identity. I am not sure whether that could be extended to family, community, nation etc.. Selfishness is not the solution, it is the problem. We do not wish to share my or family's or my nation's wealth with others. That is given. You cannot and should not try to remove it. I am not suggesting that we should not help each other. Therefore, I do not agree with the author. Identity is there to stay and it is not that bad. It needs to be managed to achieve peace and harmony for all.

Morris:

"If we treated our religion like a political party or more like a service club, it would be a much more flexible identity."

Yessir! Good point. I would add "or non-religion""....

CS
Of course, indeed.

All in all the article was a very superficial, self absorbed view of life. I don't find anything objectionable in building a collective sense of identity and a strong nation. Being an atheist myself i realise that in this world when push comes to shove it's the survival of the fittest nation. A nation can only be fit if all citizens are committed to the cause of the nation. All nations whether engaged in war or diplomacy try to get the best for their own people. What you refer to as a jingoistic National Anthem singing behaviour is what builds a nation and a collective identity. I find it offensive when pseudo-intellectuals who've not even remotely seen the hardships of battle or what it takes to defend a Nation like to criticize Nation building efforts! You benefit asmuch from the efforts of your fellow countrymen as they do from yours. You are an indian to the rest of the world and nothing is going to change that for you even if you take an american citizenship you'll still be called an Indian american. People like you are the first ones to run to the Indian community to help you in times of need in a foreign land. If you donot stand for something you will fall for anything! Your article only reflects your existential angst and no understanding and sense of purpose for your own life. Get well soon!

Rohan,

I find your comments to be quite....not sure what. Perhaps later...

Rohan,

Self-identity is, among other things, a matter of choosing whether and how your identity stretches over time - or if it does not. If you feel that your identity ends when you do, then Ergo's philosophy is a reasonable one to embrace. If you feel that your identity might live beyond your own death, and might have originated before your own birth or awareness of yourself, then his philosophy is, as you say, vapid, superficial and self-absorbed.

One should always distinguish between enlightened self-interest, which usually benefits others, and refusing to consider others at all. "Selfishness" thus becomes a red herring.

Ergo, after much searching on his own, wound up worshiping himself - a common attitude to Ayn Rand adherents. To you, the nation is important, something he reviles. Thus, "he will have no words to express to you the tragedy of your decision."

But building a strong nation is a matter of enlightened self-interest - as it would benefit others aside from you alone. Ands it is akin to seeing your own identity as extending beyond your own life and and the nose in front of your face. I'm no atheist, but I tend to agree with you in that one's identity tends to go beyond the nose in front of one's face; in addition, I posit that it stretches both back into the past and potentially into the future.

Ergo- How about denouncing even biological identity of male and female- when we drop our identities in this world, we need to go all out. once all identifications of family, religion, nation, even the identity of "atheist" needs to be abdicated. Also remove labels of being "educated" the languages ou speak and therefore through which you can be identified as a tamil or spanish etc. reject roles- father, mother, sister, brother, friend, etc. reject associations with ideologies of being green, caring etc. then what are you left with? We call this removal of all name tags that we wear in the process of life. Then ask the basic question, "Who am I?" If I am not all this, then who am I?
You are in the right path- continue the quest- just don't give up half way. blessings.

Of course, there are some who go the other way- they assume ALL identities and exclaim that "I am everything" and all-pervading!!

Rohan: "All in all the article was a very superficial, self absorbed view of life"

All in all human beings are superficial, self-absorbed people. Only a few are honest enough to come to terms with and acknowledge it.

"I don't find anything objectionable in building a collective sense of identity and a strong nation"

Its funny you would call the author self-absorbed and superficial and then follow it up with this sentence which begins with "I" and then goes on to describe a completely shallow sentiment which is associated with excluding humanity and is inclusive only of borders within which a person happens to be born.

This sentiment is not far from religious and communal fervor where people want to pledge their "collective identities" to one religion or one community.

How can people base their loyalties on land and political entities and then call others superficial. Its ironic.

Identity is necessary for us ordinary human beings. When you become one with the universal conciousness your identity is no more. Alternatively, one could become a robot and then there is no need to have an idenity other than a registration number. In between, for all of us there is a need to have an identity and there is nothing wrong with it. The ego, unnecessary pride and rivalries are the problems. These are human attributes and they are no less part of us than joy, sorrow, compassion and love. Life without them would be saintly or robotic. I am not sure of the direction the author is recommending.

sorry, after becoming a victim of identity theft, i have no idea what you folks are going on and on about.

Aditi you can continue daydreaming and living in your utopian fantasy, i'd much prefer to be a realist. When World War 3 happens and it will because of the population explosio and growing problems. i will stand by my nation, as that is would be my best hope.The world will then have no room for fencesitters like you.

Aditi, you can continue daydreaming and living in your utopian fantasy, i'd much prefer to be a realist. When World War 3 happens and it will because of the population explosion and growing problems. i will stand by my nation, as that is would be my best hope.The world will then have no room for fencesitters like you.

Aditi, you can continue daydreaming and living in your utopian fantasy, i'd much prefer to be a realist. When World War 3 happens and it will because of the population explosion and growing problems. i will stand by my nation, as that is would be my best hope.The world will then have no room for fencesitters like you.

Man is a social animal and relies heavily on the society for survival.The human baby is probably the most defenceless creature and only survives through dependence on family and the society at large contributing. The individuals with no affiliations should move to the jungles but then you all are too used to the comforts of social life expressing your views from a computer made by someone else on the Net designed by someone else. I doubt you'd survive their either because the predators do work in packs. The very fact that you've been able to develop a large enough brain to debate thoughts on unaffiliated individualism is because you relied for your very survival on social structures and natural selection was able to devote enough energies toward the development of a larger brain rather than early physical development.

Rohan:

""When World War 3 happens and it will because of the population explosion and growing problems.""

Well, if Man Singh and you carry thru with your proposed plan of elminating jihadis and commies, population explosion may not happen. Then, World War 3 might be just like the other wars: simple bomb explosions, minus the population bomb you are so terrified about.

CS you are proving to be very worthy of the Court Jester title, leaving comments on unrelated issues of another board over here. if only you'd cared to read and reply in context of the comments as they were directed at Aditi. put down the weed buddy and throw something more original. You know people are tired of your same old "No Rebuttal, evasive humour" tactic. It might work in kindergarten, not here!

Rohan, the way I see it you are the day-dreamer...especially if you think you are going to survive World War 3 by hanging onto the lapels of any particular nation. Good luck with that plan.

If it takes a war for you to love your nation and pledge your loyalties to it then I doubt the sincerity and depth of your sentiments. It is getting more and more bizarre then that you would call anybody else selfish when you are so blatantly claiming "patriotism" for what in reality is just a cowardly form of parasitic survival instinct.

By elaborating on man's being a social animal you are only revealing the dearth of understanding you bear towards the argument in this particular thread. If man is a "social" animal and not a nationalistic one then why should this sentiment figure in his/ her psyche?!

And last but not the least: if it weren't for this over the top patriotic zeal, wars would never have happened.

I really wish for your sake that you wouldn't have brought up population explosion. :)

Aditi i told you in the comment itself that i'm a realist. The article is about the need or uselessness of patriotism and social structures and the importance of the individual. Whether you classify my patriotism as a parisitic dependence, i donot care! I consider it a symbiotic relationship. I donot despise the Individual. Pseudo-intellectuals such as yourself always fall for big words no matter how trivial the ideas. I don't understand you needing a magical tale for the "unselfish patriotism". Your moral high horse of unselfishness is just an excuse to present yourself in better light than my so called "parisitic existence" and people can see through that. There is no unselfish behaviour in the world not even charity! People do charity also to feel good about themselves.

Aditi,
Gandhi suffered from the same thing you have. To overcome the Ego is not an easy thing even if you advocate, non-violence. He projected his "Ahimsa" ego on the Hindus caught behind enemy lines wanting them not to even defend themselves. He considered his very reputation at stake if the Hindus killed, even if for self defence! That is Ego, expecting things from people when you are not in the same situation as them. He asked the Jews to commit mass suicide and not fight the Holocaust. So your over inflated ego is what is driving you to say these things, a kind of self affirming belief that you are somehow too important, a larger than life figure in the whole scheme of things.

If somebody tries to attack or rob or rape you, you would try to defend yourself - because you feel you have something at stake that is worth defending. You would cry out for help from total strangers even though your self-contained 'individual' would care a less about society at large or man being social animal. We all hold certain things to be so precious that we would defend them again harm - for some it would be their family, their community, their nation, their religion, their way of life, their values, their ideology, for some, it would be their property, their cars and bunglows, their career, their possessions, their girlfriends/boy friends, their ideas, etc. We hold ourselves so closely with some of them. Pandits and Swamis would tell you that they are all Maya, attachments, illusions - they would even claim the idea of self and 'individual' to be maya, ignorance, illusion too. So what should we do, live like a rootless nomad, wandering yogi, rolling stone Hippie? Indians did that for thousands of years, having no attachment to anything beyond their immediate family and community/village - world simply did not exist beyond their village. Indians had to rudely wake up when alien invaders sought to fill that vaccume with hostile and exploitative notions. That is why I am wary of Individualists - because they would try to atomize and liquidate everything beyond 'individual' , anarchist - because they try to break down consensus at every level, universalists - because they are essentially nihilists and abolitionists as they try to abolish everything at decentralized and local levels in favor of some rhetorical utopia in the sky, pseudo-secularists - because they slaps a reductionist paradigm riddled with contrieved zero-sum, either-or false choices. I think they are true parasites, cutting the very branch they are perched on, taking from society but hiding behind kind of excuses to evade their duty and responsibility. That is why, in my earlier post, I suggested that these people should bar themselves from living in any nation, from practicing any religion, from forming any society, from having any family.

There is a difference between patriotism and jingoism. Those who suffer from jingoism are quick to paint any opposing view point as traitorous.

Its very easy to give in to jingoism but not all patriots become jingoists.

Nation building is a patriotic act but jingoism is used to forward imperialism.

War is the last alternative. Getting nuked is not what we want. Even the thought of it is horrifying. Being a pacifist doesn't mean we are selling our nation short. It means we give peace its best shot, we try to reach the other side's heart by dialog and then think of war.

Ego and Anger are related; we lash out blindly when they combine and generally on those who cannot defend themselves.

No one is saying surmounting the Ego means becoming a door mat and letting enemies or individuals walk all over.

Truth and Justice have to be followed. Patriotism in today's day and age means, at least to me, fighting terrorism and blind rage at the same time. Its like looking at pure evil in the eye and not letting the darkness within us emerge and mirror it.

We have to root it out without becoming like them.

It all goes back to having a strong hold over ego, and emotions and channeling the anger against the crime in the right direction.

Aditi,

Might I ask you a polite question?

Do you view yourself as existing at all after your own death?

Do you view yourself as having an identity that perhaps predates your own birth?

Just curious. The comments of the author (who is not commenting because either he is not paying any further attention to the site, or has forgotten the article) appears to have rejected these ideas. That is what I deduced from the following:

I have always denounced holding any sense of identity that is based on the merely accidental and which is not consciously chosen. For this reason, I reject automatic, unchosen allegiance to nations, cities, ethnic groups, races, families, tribes, or any other accidental aspects of one's existence.

Just curious.

Aditi, on one hand you advocate selfishness and on the other you call for no national boundaries, open borders. I don't want no Bangladeshis coming to India and making it an even filthier place than it already is reducing. Before you tell people about all lands for all people they chose as individuals to be the Islamic shithole that they are and now would like to come and make India a shithole too. You call selfishness "cowardly parisitic dependence" and also Hijack the cause of Individualism. Your views contradict all the time yet you project the self appointed "Moral Better" so to speak. Your morality is relative. Can't expect any honesty from Commies, can I? Every issue is an opportunity for you to break a nation and take over!

#37

People, in order to give more weight to their argument and discount the counter-reaction, often say that truth hurts. But that is not the whole truth. Lies hurt too and people react to lies with feeling of hurt too.

In the same vain, when people are quick to call certain views traitorous, one should not be quick to call it jingoism, because such reaction can stem from genuine patriotism too. So how quickly one calls something treasonous can not be a litmus test of what is patriotism and what is jingoism. Only substance can separate them.

There are two opposite schools on patriotism in India

1) One school always looks at negatives and blemishes so they can be highlighted, propagandized nationally and internationally and made source of power for its votaries. So it always stays on a mission to find negatives, things to be ashamed of, things that need to change and destroyed. To it, nothing is good enough, nothing is worth loving, nothing is worth defending. Its positions stem from guilt and hatred. It notices people who love and who hold on to it - it sees them as stumbling block, a real enemy. So it is easy for it to make common cause with all who view the nation as their enemy and have hostile ambitions. Thus, it can't see any adversary or enemy or traitor. It can only see them as allies to build bridges with, loyal friends, supporters, votebanks. It can't find any Jehadi or terrorist it can not hug. To it, all patriotism is Jingoism, a system of perpetuating the negative energies of a nation. Peace at any cost is the mantra. Except when it has to deal with people who love their nation little too much - than 1000 year war without any let up is offered to them. But than they do not call it a war - it is called reform, jehad, revolution, freedom and empowerment movement.


2) One that always looks at sunny and positive sides, even if they may not exist but in some distant past, as source of idealization and inspiration to shape the present and future. It sees nation as sum and continuation of values, institutions, traditions, cultures, communities not just collection of individuals or government and its laws. So it remains on a mission to preserve, protect and perpetuate - always singing praises to the glories of heritage and society. Its mission stems out of love, love and attachment for the society. Thus it notices people who do not love enough - subverters, trojan horses, fifth columns, turn-coats, traitors, enemies. It is always willing to defend against them at any cost. To it, if you are not willing to defend the society you live in, than one can't be patriotic. Unwillingness to defend a nation or blocking people who like to defend it is what defines something as a treason. Only persons who are indifferent, or having alien loyalties and allegiances, or having an attitude of intense hatred towards what nation embodies would shy away from being patriotic. Only traitors and enemy combatants would block the patriotic persons from carrying out duty towards defending their nation.

In India, we have not been able to define what 'nation' is. That is the crowning success of traitors. If one can not have national consensus on what nation actually is, than one can not define what national interest, national security, national welfare are too, much less devise effective policies to achieve them or defend them. The murkiness on patriotism is the end result.

Our armed forces and cops who defend our country are true patriots- of course there is no jingoism there!

Who are you talking about Kerty?

Rohan: "on the other you call for no national boundaries, open borders"

I am not "calling" for any such thing. If you read my comments you would know. I have clarified several times that not being patriotic does not automatically mean wanting a borderless world.

Dee: I have the utmost respect for those in the armed forces and their love for the country. My grandfather was in the army during the Goa Liberation movement and I do respect my nation's history.

However lately "patriotism" has become a somewhat commercialized sentiment that is promoted and forced down people's psyches like it were a product not an emotion. More importantly it is used to instill guilt in those whose occupation, talent or skill cannot find expression within our nation's borders. It is used to drive exclusion, apathy and even disrespect towards other nations. This is the part that I cannot relate to.

Same old patriotism debate :-)!! I wonder which side would each of the above posters be in the 1920s

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F05E5DF1E3EEE3ABC4850DFB467838A639EDE

A. At a full session of the Indian National Congress today the resolution proposed by Mahatma Gandhi declaring for continuation of the policy of non-violence in the effort to obtain independence from the british empire

OR


B. In opening the fourth session of the All India Liberal federation, Govind Araghava Iyer, President of the Federation said it was the duty of the liberals to offer their most loyal and cordial welcome to the prince of wales. He urged the liberals to strive for full dominion status within the British Empire. He pointed out that cooperation was always has been the liberal motto.

Here is another part of speech from the above mentioned All India liberal federation. I think i read a similar comment from someone above (cannot recall who, am sorry)

"growing hatred for the European which is so noticeable and regrettable a feature of recent devlopments in the country is destructive of that amity and good fellowship upon which our political progress equally with economic progress depends"

Aditi,
So you want borders but no exclusiveness. So, since patriotism has "lately" been misused according to you you'd like to bag it absolutely. You are no different from a totalitarian commie. So stop going around in circles trying to catch your own tail and catch it already. I'll repeat you classify my patriotism as a parisitic dependence! I consider it a symbiotic relationship. I don't understand you needing a magical tale to inspire you for"unselfish patriotism". Your moral high horse of unselfishness is just an excuse to present yourself in better light than my so called "cowardly parisitic existence" as you put it and people can see through that.

Rohan

No point trying to persuade people here. Some of these folks would have come up with fantastic arguments even supporting British rule before 1947 . The difference between us and the Chinese is that the Chinese would take a US passport and spy for the Chinese Govt while some of our Indian brothers and sisters would take a US passport and spy in India for the Yanks. (Example: Rabinder Singh)

Nation is more than sum of its transient crop of individuals, its government, its political apparatus, its law enforcement and armed agencies. Armed forces have the very limited mandate to defend the political entity. Same goes for law enforcement agencies. Political entity is not the only valuable thing nation has. Its only a starting point and not an end in itself - when it is made into an end in itself, it becomes highly reductionist and destructive - which is why people allergic to patriotism usually hide behind this reductionist notion of loving Indian statism/governmentism but hating what India as a nation embodies in its sum total. In a way, it creates a weird inclusivism that allows people of all shades to find something to love about India and hate the rest. In absence of political consensus about what that sum total of India is, we have reduced our expectation from people, that people, at a minimum, would pledge allegiance to a bare basic and minimal base line - India as a political entity and its borders and laws. For patriotism nay-sayers, even that would be jingoism. Unless Indian statism creates an antithetical adversarial dichotomy with Indian nationalism, they withhold all forms of patriotic expressions. As a result, neither of them succeed, neither Indian statism nor Indian nationalism. Enemy's Mission accomplished.

Mathematically speaking Human Being= Function (Identity1, Identity2, Identity3.....). Although I appreciate the intentions of the author, his ideals are clearly UTOPIAN. Identity is not only something consciously or accidentally chosen, but is also something that is assigned by the others on you. So it is practically impossible to live without identities. At least in my life so far I haven't yet come across anybody who is completely identityless.

I also garner from the article very clearly that he is clearly worked-up over his Indian identity. Even if he or she doesn't want to identify himself as an Indian, he will be labelled as an Indian or any "ian" by the others that constitute this world. So instead of whining over identities it would be better off if the author concentrates on the best elements of his or her existential identities and use it to better his or her life and thereby make this world a better place.

Chandra/ Rohan: It doesn't have to be one or the other you know: patriotic, jhanda wielding freedom fighter or gaddaar traitor spy :)

Thats taking things to an extreme (very Bollwyood like of you guys!). One can be perfectly ethical and principled without pledging their loyalties towards a particular nation and still abiding by the rules and regulations set for immigration.

If you guys don't understand the concept of not being patriotic thats another thing but don't expect everybody to have the same outlook as you. Thats just being close-minded. I don't suddenly expect you to denounce your own patriotic tendencies....no matter how questionable Rohan's "patriotism" is. So you can at least do the same for others who don't share your view. No? Or is that asking for too much?

AN

I think there is a huge difference between idealism and reality. I can understand your perspective but I donot think you are being practical at all. Your position is largely based on the relaity that you are going to be stuck in a foreign country for a very long time (for ever probably).

"Your position is largely based on the relaity that you are going to be stuck in a foreign country for a very long time (for ever probably)"

Well firstly, it doesn't matter what my position is based on. I'm not changing it.

Secondly, it is actually the other way around. Since I do not get mushy and warm when patriotic songs come on and feel pangs of guilt when watching Swades, that makes it easier for me to live in another country and make it my home without always looking like a sullen outsider who complains about what America doesn't have that India does on weekends at the Hindu temple and at desi parties where everybody gets all desh-premi for the sake of it.

You are right there is a difference between idealism and reality. A vast one. For me it is impractical to base sentiments on political entities. As I said the way I see it patriotism is impractical.

Its just a matter of perspective.

AN,
It is not my "patriotism" which is questionable but your very rights in the society. While you choose to live in a society and benefit from it, you donot take any responsibility but are quick to project your own rights within the society. It's you who is truly Parasitic. While i talk of a symbiotic relationship, if you donot understand that, it means a give and take for the benefit of both. Rights cannot exist without responsibilities. People like you intend to break down society at all levels. Classic anarchist behaviour. Oh, and i despise Bollywood, i don't need some moronic bad actors to tell me what is in my interest. If i was an American i'd be Patriotic toward the USA. My comments relate to the individual and his duty toward the society he/she benefits from.

Rohan: I wish you a speedy recovery from whatever it is that ails you thus. I hear close-mindedness is terminal. So my sympathies.

Sorry to repeat this phrase, but whatever condition Rohan is afflicted with, I bet it's hard to pronounce.

AN

I am not sure that all the examples you mentioned have anything to do with patriotism. I personally get irritated with one's desire to replicate your Indian life in a foreign country. Anyway, each man or woman for himself. Patriotism in my view is about protecting the interest's of one's country and country men. You can argue day in and day about this definition and I admit it is not perfect. But this whole I donot believe thing is too much idealism. Of course it sets you apart but it is not practical at all. I will prove this to you in time.

rgds

I agree with Chandra. Patriotism means a Tambram identifying with a Khasi tribal in Assam or a Bora Muslim in Lucknow more than with another Tambram who has become an US citizen.

Otherwise it is other shared identities passing off as patriotism.

Chandra: "I will prove this to you in time"

I cannot wait. :)

I do fervently hope that your proof and logic is in simpler forms than Ledzius's confounding statement above which I cannot even begin to comprehend. Cause if what Led describes in comment #57 is the accepted idea of patriotism then I've had an epiphany of why I may not be patriotic. I am almost sure I don't identify with Khasi tribals in Assam.

:D

AN

This 'epiphany' thing sounds like something BO said a few days ago :-)

I dont know what to say about Ledz's example but surely, we will find an opportunity where we can test this patriotism thing better.....

[Edited]

court jesters like me are thankful for any source of income. hungry?

[Edited]

Rohan: consider yourself warned one last time - Editor

From that IP:

* "Rohan" has posted 9 comments
* "Rohan [Edited]" has posted 1 comments
* "commonsense" has posted 1 comments

Huh???

Editors, I did not write this message! Please check the IP address of the impersonator. Pointless to conjecture.

Editors,

I mean I did not write message # 63

Editors,

I checked my email account and it seems it has not been hacked. Who knows??

I will refrain from conjecturing who it could be even though I have a good idea.

Editors,

I would expect something more than a last warning to Rohan for deliberately impersonating me, but I am not questioning the decision. As long as everyone knows that it was him.

Warned of what, like a care about being able to access this fascist site. I'm not interested in a site that promotes one sided propaganda and abuses from commonsense and edits all dissent and replies. Ironic that people like you all project yourselves for Democracy, free speech etc. You can stuff your silly site where the sun don't shine. Bye wankers

Bye Rohan.

Rohan
Just relax. There is a lot of bs, a little bit serious serious discussion here. Don't get overly concerned.