Watched Khelien Hum Jee Jaan Sey yesterday. I must say I had not much clue about the scale of the Chittagong revolution. History books have a tendency of reducing historic efforts to short answer questions. Write two lines on the Chittagong revolution.
However the movie then set me thinking on the inherent lack of any kind of patriotism/ regionalism in my own core. I have a flagrant disregard for most things national- flag, anthem, bird, animal, etc. National holidays are good, however. We should have a few more of those.
My point, before I choose to meander again, is- how different is the average Chittagong revolutionary- undoubtedly heroic, jaw droppingly inspiring and profitable in terms of the movie business- from a revolutionary/ terrorist belonging to the LeT or ULFA or Babbar Khalsa? All these organizations have their roots in the same psyche that a national revolution germinates from- a recognition of regional/ potential national identity, aided perhaps by injustices of whoever be the current ruling authority. What allures the terrorist also is the fact that the terrorist of today would be the revolutionary of tomorrow; might be read about in history books; might have small tortured souls write short notes on him to pass exams.
I do not have an issue with the forefathers of India who chose the path of violence. I do not also have any intention of belittling the efforts of people like Surjya Sen or Nirmal Sen or Azad or Bhagat Singh. I think however that a nation conquered/ forged by violence will inevitably disintegrate. Bhagat Singh was smart enough to realize this- he had the foresight to look beyond the British rule- how India must be governed, etc. My point is- and stay with me here- is that every nation or at least nations that I can think of that emerged from some kind of foreign overlordship have had their eventual paths forged by their first leaders.
The birthing years of a new/ young nation are very important and steady hand at the centre, whatever his inclinations/ leanings/ ideas, will define the state of the nation in the future. Nehru’s socialistic designs on India, even though outdated in today’s capitalistic context, gave India a steady, rock solid childhood. Lincoln’s concept of building roads & infrastructure in a newly freed America, gave its childhood, eventual adolescence, youth and now middle age the kind of nutritional support that sees it as the world’s largest economy. Look at Pakistan however- a nation whose father died six months into independence- leaving it an orphan- leaving it to stepfathers who abused its potential entirely.
My point thus, with all my segues, is that I oppose patriotism/ regionalism for two reasons. Inevitably patriotism/ regionalism will create revolutionaries/ terrorists who are infinitely more dangerous should they succeed. A set of people consumed wholly by the thought of independence will be incredibly clueless as to what to do after becoming independent- perhaps like in Pakistan/ Afghanistan. Revolution/ terrorism, in my mind, shall create a bloodlust- an easy route out- that no end goal, not even another independence, will be able to satiate. Also the kind of birthing process a nation has will define its entire life- a violently obtained nation has a tendency to stay violent. Which is where a victory through terror is dangerous.
Also my issue with patriotism is that where does it stop? Do I call myself an Asian? Or an Indian? Or a Punjabi? Or a Delhiite? It is very easy for the common man to confuse patriotism and regionalism & as regionalism (look at the Maratha Manus movement) will eventually disintegrate a nation, patriotism- overt that is- shall disintegrate the world.
However, to each his own.
