Who is an Indian?
By P. V. Indiresan

A QUESTION passionately asked everywhere in the country and by everybody not so long ago was:
who is an Indian? As it generally happens in politics, emotions have evaporated considerably
and Indianness is no longer a prime issue. So, we can now discuss the issue objectively, free
from the biases surrounding personalities. A similar query was raised in the Mahabharata by a
Yaksha who asked Yudhishtira: ``Who is a Brahmana?'' Yudhishtira's answer is, a person becomes
a Brahmana not by birth, not even by scholarship but by conduct appropriate to Brahmanic values.
Similarly, one may say a person becomes an Indian not by birth, not even by citizenship but by
conduct, the kind of conduct that accords with Indianness.

Prof. Robert Reich, a Harvard academic who used to be Labour Secretary
under the President, Mr. Bill Clinton, tackled a similar question in a uniquely intellectual
style. He raised the question ``Who is Us?'' concerning American business. He then came with
the unexpected answer that whether a firm was owned by Americans or by outsiders was immaterial.
Whether a firm ``Us'' or not depended only on what it contributed to American growth and
prosperity. Any firm (even if it was foreign-owned) should be deemed part of ``Us'' if promoted
the development of American technology and invested in enhancing the skills of American labour.

As he explained, knowledge and skills are immovable assets that will
remain within the country even if the firm pulls out its capital. These days, the movement of
capital is so easy and so frequent that even a firm owned fully by local citizens may pull out
its capital any time. On the other hand, even a fully foreign-owned company can never take away
the technology and skills it has developed locally. Following Prof. Reich's line of thought,
Indianness does not depend on either birth or citizenship but hinges on contributions made to
the development of indigenous skills and indigenous technology. Then, it would be interesting
to enquire of each of our political parties and each of our political leaders what contributions
they have made to these two critical factors of national development.

In what way have our parties contributed to the enhancement of human
skills? On a per capita basis, the Government spends 20 per cent more on education than Sri
Lanka. However, in Sri Lanka, only 10 per cent of the population is illiterate; in India, the
figure is five times bigger. Actually, India has an many illiterates as in the rest of the
world put together! That is no accident, 98-99 per cent of state expenditure on education
goes for the salaries of teachers, most of whom do not teach. Even if they want to, they are
too ill-equipped to do so. Politicians send their children to private schools at great expense,
schools which recruit the best teachers irrespective of caste or creed. Yet, the same
politicians in the name of ``social justice'' condemn most of the population to education of
the worst sort.

It has been reported that Mr. Laloo Prasad Yadav was asked why he sent his children
to English-medium private schools and not to the Hindi-medium schools run by the Bihar Government.
Mr. Yadav is said to have retorted: ``Do you take me to be an idiot?'' No! He certainly is not an
idiot, but he evidently thinks his people are! So, he thinks that they deserve no better than an
apology for a school where he would never let his children study. Then, applying Prof. Reich's
hypothesis, will Mr. Yadav qualify as an Indian? For that matter, on these grounds, will any
politician qualify?

Let us take the other end of education. There is in Bangalore a teaching hospital that,
unusually for a government hospital, boasts of an excellent reputation. Recently, the Minister
in charge held an on-the-spot enquiry. His concern was not about the quality of service or the
expertise of the specialists. He went to the hospital only to humiliate the Director (who
recently won a prestigious national award) for not employing people of his caste and State.
Applying Prof. Reich's criterion, is that Minister enhancing the skills of Indian people? Does
he qualify to be an Indian? There is enough factual evidence that intellectual quality is
dependent not on caste but on the educational environment of the child. Irrespective of caste,
children from good schools substantially outperform those studying in poorly-equipped ones.
The Minister could have used his political clout to see that only competent persons were
selected to teach and, further, discipline was enforced so that they would teach regularly and
diligently. Every MP gets a discretionary grant of Rs. 2 crores a year. He or she could use that
amount to improve the education of poor children. MPs do no such thing. Apparently, no MP sees
any need to do so.

Mahatma Gandhi wrote in Hind Swaraj: ``That which you consider to be the Mother of
Parliaments is like a sterile woman and a prostitute. Both these are harsh terms but exactly fit
the case''. To the credit of the British administration in India, it did not take offence, and
let those words pass. On the other hand, many people took umbrage when it was pointed out that
Mr. V. P. Singh, former Prime Minister, got treated frequently in London at a cost of over Rs.
1 lakh a day. It was he who insisted that training for the highest skills in medicine be not
given to the most competent but by reserved for persons of certain castes. Yet, he himself
refuses to be treated by doctors from those castes.``To thine own self be true'', wrote
`Shakespeare. Thus, we have a situation where people holding the highest positions
systematically destroy the quality of education from the lowest to highest levels in the
confidence that they and their families will not suffer the consequences. Are such politicians,
including Mr. Singh, Indians or are they maharajas accountable to no one? According to Prof.
Reich, technology is the second critical factor. Thirteen years ago, India acquired the Bofors
guns at an enormous cost. The contract included the technology to manufacture ammunition and
spares. No steps have yet been taken to use that knowhow. So, we continue to import the
ammunition and spares at an enormous cost. We are spending in Kargil Rs. 50,000 for every salvo
fired.

Further, many guns purchased at an enormous expense remain out of action for want of
spares. We also have indigenous technology to pinpoint enemy artillery by observing through
radars the trajectory of the shells they fire. That too has not been extended to the case of
Bofors guns. So, we are constrained to use human spotters to direct our artillery. The Army has
been starved of technology all these years because politicians of all hues have acquired a vested
interest in technology imports. That goes to such an extent they deliberately scuttle indigenous
technology development.

For instance, last year orders were placed on MNCs for 1.69 million lines of telecom
switches at Rs. 5,600 per line. Had indigenously-designed and manufactured C-DoT switches been
given that order, the country would have saved around Rs. 300 crores in foreign exchange.
This year the order on MNCs was repeated for 1.3 million more lines. The Chairman of the
Parliamentary Committee for Communications is Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, communist leader.
You expected that, at least for helping Indian labour, he would stop such travesty. No! He has
endorsed the removal of Mr. Jagmohan, who made some honest attempts to promote Indian technology.
Apparently, according to the norms of Prof. Reich, Mr. Chatterjee is not only not an Indian, he
is not even a communist!

The whole question about Indianness started with Mrs. Sonia Gandhi. By
the standards of the current debate, is she an Indian? Consider her admonishment to her followers:
``Those who trust me come along; those who think otherwise are free to part ways''. Even Sri
Krishna did not go that far in the Bhagavad Gita. So, she must be more than God. Then, it is not
appropriate to judge her by the standards of ordinary mortals. As for Congressmen, when they wait
with palpitating hearts, stand shivering in their shoes for her darshan, they would be thinking not
of their country but of their deity. So, they are not nationalists but monarchists, and there is no
point enquiring whether they are Indians.