Transcript: Interview with Professor T.K. Oommen by Lionel König Date 2 nd April, 2009 New Delhi, India

Transcription

1 Transcript: Interview with Professor T.K. Oommen by Lionel König Date 2 nd April, 2009 New Delhi, India Citizenship as conceptual flow Lionel König: LK T.K. Oommen: T.K. LK: This is the record of an interview with Prof. T.K. Oommen in New Delhi on the research project citizenship as conceptual flow- Asia and Europe in comparative perspective. To start with, what constitutes in your opinion the idea of citizenship? T.K.: The general belief is that the idea of citizenship came to this part of the world from Europe. That is based on a misconception. Because, wherever states existed there was citizenship. Now, the question is, many European scientists particularly anthropologists, talked about stateless societies- this is a conceptual nullity, because no society ever existed without state if you understand state as body, the entity which is endowed with the right to exercise legitimate authority. So, if, you are thinking in terms of a state as there is a executive, there is a legislator there is a judiciary, well, that maybe not be there. All these men maybe combined in the body of a tribal chief, for example. Or the xxx. Even in the direkte (sic!) democracy of the famous Greek city state, you know, there where three levels. The Patricians, the plebeians and the slaves. Only the patricians really participated in the discourse. Satz nicht verstanden (1.55). Weiter (2.03). So, there was a tendency in earlier times that many things are combined. Now, there is a tendency to differentiate. But! As we understand it today, the idea of citizenship is related to the institution of nation-state. But nation-state itself is a problematic notion to which we come later. LK: This was a quite general view, but what constitutes the idea of citizenship in your opinion in India? Is there anything specific about Indian citizenship? T.K.: You see, as I said, in a very strict sense of the term, citizenship is a notion, which is associated with the democratic state. During the pre-colonial times when we had our own kings and emperors, there where no citizens as we understand it today, but there where subjects. So, the emperor will have his or her subjects, than came the colonial regime, than also the British xxx (3:14) had have subjects in India-, we all were subjects. To that extent you can say the idea of citizenship as it is prevailing in the contemporary world is in fact a post-colonial phenomenon. Because, there equality was not a part of citizenshipin the pre- colonial times. There where citizens, but they where graded- some where more privileged, and who gets more or less privileges was also determined by the king- or 1

2 emperor as the case varies. But citizenship as an instrument of equality, as, by and large, a phenomenon that just came to India in the post- colonial era. LK: So, you are saying that the post- colonial status produced a different idea of citizenship? T.K.: In the sense that, ahh,- if you think of that in terms of equality and social justice as inevitable ingredients of the idea of citizenship yes! Because, you know, when you talk about citizenship it has to be seen in the context of the xxx (4:35) society. Ah, I very frequently say, that, if a society is simply fructified (!?!; 4:42), that means in terms of classes, in terms of gender, in terms of age groups, it is fairly easy to induct (?; 4:51) the idea of citizenship. But, if a society is also culturally and racially heterogeneous it s much more difficult. For example, the Turkish people in Germany, complicates the idea of citizenship. Because, they are not accepted, perceived as Germans. Similarly here, we have a slightly different situation. In India you have, ah, not only people of different religious communities. We have people of different, so many different, linguistic communities. So, we have more or less thousands of mother tongues talked here. So, the moment a society becomes, ah, culturally heterogeneous and more complicating, when the society is hierarchical. In a traditional understanding in India in a caste system-, we have superior caste and inferior caste. So, because of these two factors, cultural heterogeneity, as well as, social hierarchy, the applicability of citizenship as an idea is much more difficult in a country like India. And that is why, we have to think in terms of innovations. Just to give you one example. We all talk about the constitution, promising equality,. All democratic constitutions do that, which I call ontologically equality. It is a promise. But in order to translate that promise into reality, we have to think in terms of the equality of opportunity. But equality of opportunity can be practiced only if equality of conditions is created (?; 6:42). Here is a xxx (?; 6:44). In India for example, the Hindus are 82%, on the other hand there are several, ahh, religious minority groups. The biggest linguistic group is the Hindi speakers-, about 40%, then there are so many other smaller groups. Now, can you really think in terms of equality, within (?;7:07) these groups, unless they create equality of conditions? Or, much worse, is the caste system. In the caste system, because of the hierarchy, the most privileged one is on the top, you normally call upper caste, followed by the, in the contemporary terminology, other backward classes. But these two groups, both where above what we call the pollution line- pollution meaning ritual pollution, not environmental pollution- about ritual pollution. But there was a group of people who where below the ritual pollution line- the ex- untouchables. There are 16% today, which is 160 million people, two times the population of your country (Germany). And we have what is called the indigenous people, or the tribal people-, 8%-, which is 80 million. So, for these two groups particularly, the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes together are making 240 million people. To talk in terms of equality of opportunity has no meaning! And that s why we have policy measures of affirmative action as they call it in the United States or policy of protective discrimination as we call it in India to create this equality of condition so that the content, the substance of citizenship is made xxx (mimic?; 8:32). 2

3 L.K.: So if I understood this correctly, there is an indigenous notion of citizenship in India, it is not a wholly imported concept?! T.K.: Absolutely! Because, the idea of fairness, the idea of justice before the king, before the emperor, before the state, was the basic idea of citizenship. Because, the state is expected to treat citizens equally- if other conditions are the same. If conditions are dissimilar they cannot be treated equally. But the system assumed that the upper caste is superior and the lower caste is inferior and therefore, under dissimilar conditions the application of the notion of equality will have to be different, thus, in the traditional context, if you are a Brahmin, and if you committed murder you have one punishment. If I am a Shudra and if I have committed the murder I have a much severe punishment, because, the state itself at that point in time has accepted inequality of citizenship. But, that has a religious root, and that religious root is the theory of karma and rebirth the notion of varna scheme, et cetera. Why you are a Brahmin? Because, in the previous birth you have done some wonderful things. You have conformed what is called varna-xxx (varna shamadharma?; 10:11). And therefore you have reborn as a Brahmin, whereas I might have been a Brahmin in the previous birth but since I did not follow my dharma or duty I have been born (correct?; 10:24) as a new incarnation as a Shudra. In other words, you are responsible for what you are. So if you understand the logic of it, which may not (mean?; 10:34) tune in, in the contemporary values, but that s not what we are discussing. The idea of citizenship, of treating people equally, provided the conditions are equal, existed. But they assume that the conditions are unequal. If they are unequal xxx (?10:50) they have to be treated unequally. L.K.: So you are mentioning religion as an important factor. Are there also other factors that contributed to the amalgamation of the imported idea of citizenship and India s social and political reality? T.K.: I will illustrate it with one example. Religion is one. Let us take up language. Now, hardly any democratic country in the world has more than one official language. Official! There will be actually everyday xxx (conducts?; 11:28) context languages, many languages are used. Think of the United States of America which is usually build as the most successful democracy in the world, there is only on official language, which is English. But peoples there, their mother tongues are very many. Even the Mexicans who have come to California earlier. They are meant to accept Spanish as a second language, is not acceptable to the government of United States of America,- as of now. But here, we have 24 officially recognized languages, as of now. Now, obviously there are variations. Some of these languages are huge, as I said already. Now, those people have some advantage, over others, whose language or mother tongue is small. And with the result, again when we talk in terms of equality, there is a problem. If I am a Hindi speaker, I belong to the 40% of the population. So, the spread of the Hindi language, being much wider than let us say the spread of Malayalam, which is my mother tongue,- I have a xxx (?12:51) to Kerala, the opportunity of the Hindi speaker is much more! Whereas the opportunity of the Malayalam speaker is restricted,- that created inequality. But then, it may not be always possible for the state to adjudicate. One way is that, the Malayalam speaking person is asked to learn Hindi, so that he can also compete. But if you are a 3

4 Hindi speaker, and I am a Malayalam speaker,- I mean your mother tongue is Hindi and mine is Malayalam-, it is extremely difficult to learn Hindi and successfully competing with you. You see how inequality of conditions is build into the social structure of xxx (?; 13:43). Now, this is more problematic when it comes to the caste factor. Because, traditionally even education was denied to the lower castes. Now, after independence with the British coming the process has stated and after independence we have taken the position that all the citizens are equal and therefore they should be provided the opportunity. But the, education was not a common good to be purchased, ah, to be availed of from the state. If you are a person with well off parents, you will be sent to a much better school. If my father is an ordinary worker, I will go to an ordinary school. So the very fact that we differentiated right from the beginning, in the process you are getting much higher quality education as to compared with me, getting lower quality education; again creates conditions of inequality. And since caste factor was xxx (?; 14:56) there, it was very difficult to think in terms of what is called equal citizenship. And that came- my simple point is- contrary to what most political scientists think, you can not conceive of citizenship, the substance of citizenship, the quality of citizenship independent (ly) of the social structure L.K.: So, yea, language, religion and caste are important factors- ahmm- do the lead toahmm they lead to inequality- but do they also lead to differentiated citizenship regime in India? T.K.: Differentiated? L.K.: Differentiated citizenship regime. T.K.: Yes! In reality yes. Formally no! Because we are all citizens of- ahmmm- the Indian republic, we are all promised to this equality, but in everyday life, when we really wanting to avail of our entitlements, there are differences. As they say, if you are from a privileged background you have advantages. And that is not only true of India, that is true of Germany, that is true of United States, that is true of anywhere, any democratic polity. But! In your case- ahh- all are Germans in the sense they are German speaking, I am not talking about the migrant population. All are, by and large, belonging to the same religion. Of course I know the difference between protestant and catholic and other denominations- but Christians. So, what I am trying to say is the number of complicating factors are much less in the case of Germany. But in the case of India, we have many more factors which enter. And therefore, this creates what I normally refer towards cumulative inequality. If I have only one factor, namely class, this is fairly easily negotiated. Or lets add gender also. She is sitting her - (is referring to someone else in the room?!) So, class and gender, everybody talks about it,- in the United State they only talk about three things: class, gender and race. But you normally don t talk about race. Why? Because you are not confronted with that problem, as much as, the United stated is. So as the internal milieu of a society becomes more and more complex, then you also introduce newer dimensions in order to understand the complexity of the notion of citizenship. Here, it s not enough to talk about 4

5 class, or gender or even race in a certain sense, because our North-East people appeartheir appearance is quite different than inland people. But we have to bring in language, we have to bring in our religion, we have to bring in caste. So, when you add all this- and this is what I call cumulative creation of inequality, leading to greater complexity in understanding citizenship. L.K.: So, do I get it right that there are different ideas of citizenship also prevailing in India according to the degree of inclusiveness the status as an citizen entails? T.K.: You see, - formally no. Because, the state says, we are all equal citizens of a great country called India or Indian Republic. But, in effect there are levels and degrees of exclusion. See, formally we are all included, but there are different layers of exclusion. I used the example of language, using my own mother tongue Malayalam. Ah- let me shift! I am a Christian by birth from Kerala. Generally, at least one section of what we call the hindu militants or hindu nationalists- consider- that Muslims and Christians are cultural outsiders, and I ve dealt with that problem in several places. They are legal insiders- I am a citizen-, but culturally, ehhh, a complete Indian is a Hindu. This is the land of Hindus. And therefore, anybody who has a religion, particularly not of indigenous origin,- Islam, Christianity, Judaism, whatever, are not culturally, a complete cultural- ahhhh- person, Indian. And with that xxx (20.12/13) I am excluded. So it s quite possible that political inclusion and cultural exclusion can quite (co-?,20.26) exist. And there are people, as I already told you, the- have you heard about RSS?- Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh- very openly say, that these people do not belong here. But there are new xxx (20.39) there. There are religious minorities of indigenous/indian (? Richtig?20.46) origin. Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains. They are also considered to be cultural insiders. The don t have a problem on this count. But since they are minorities, they have a problem. But not as intense as the minorities of--- ah- minorities who profess religions that not origin in India. There are three religious groups who have come to India as mere migrants. Jews, Zorastrians and Bahais. They are very small groups, the do not,- they are not even visible, unless you look for them. But, Christians, as well as, Muslims are big of course,- Muslims are much, much bigger,- 14% or 140 million people. Christians are much smaller. Christians are about 2.3 to 2.4 % which is about 25 million which is also much bigger as compared with many of the European,- ahhh, I mean, ah, the population of many European states. These people are excluded, as I told already, but there is a reasonable. Christians are believed to be products of colonialism and Muslims that of conquest, upset historically. Because, Christianity came to India to Kerala coast where I come from much before into your country- Germany. Saint Thomas, one of the Apostles came to Kerala,- and this is historical evidence- that he has converted people. So, that Kerala Christians,- if Kerala is taken as a part of India,- certainly are much more ancient as European Christians. Similarly Muslims. They all see Muslims of India as part of a conquest starting in 8 th century from the north. But Phoenician xxx (22.53) came again to Kerala coast much before that. At least by 7 th century there were Muslim settlements in Kerala, and they locally married and settled down. So, this stigmatisation of Muslim and Christians in India is traceable to the public or the common perception that they are products of conquest and colonialism which is historically untrue. 5

6 L.K.: So, speaking of this ideology of RSS and likeminded groups, is there or are there in reality first class citizens, second class citizens and maybe even third class citizens in India? T.K.: (giggling) In common parlance we all use this term, but I don t think there are really crystallized conceptions. People, ahh, many a time think that ohh I am treated as a second class citizen, and they feel somewhat angry about it. You know, I have started living in Delhi, ah, I ve shifted here in Hariana, which is a part of Delhi in a way for 40 years, which means I lived a longer period of my life in Delhi than my native Kerala. But even today in the streets when they hear my name, when I speak Hindi, immediately the will say you are a Madrassi- Madrassi is those who are belonging to south of India. So you are not culturally a part. It has not included (? Correct? 24.38/9) my religion,- even a Hindu from Kerala will be perceived similarly. So that linguistic and regional variation is there, and therefore in some context we feel,- yes-, we are treated as second class citizens. But this is a problem, I repeat, peculiar to those societies where social structure is much more, very complex. See, I remember just when the eve of,- ahh, before and after,- the fall of the Berlin wall I have been in your country. And I could see the difference. Of course before the fall certainly there is Germans where feel very uncomfortable for a variety of things and sometimes expressed to that view in conversations. After the fall that changed but for quite some time there where treated as pure cousins,- they are part of one country. For example I know if I travel in the east German part of Germany my ticket in the tram or the buss will be less as compared to the west German part. And in their perception, yes- they are subsidising us, but we are also treated as pure cousins. Gradually it is a changing (door bell is ringing, short interruption) Sorry, what I am trying to say is even when religion is the same, even when language is the same, the idea of an second-class citizen can come. In your case the division was based on secularized ideology, capitalism and socialism but in this case there was no such division- the division was much deeper in terms of religion, language, caste and therefore the subjective feeling of perception that I am not treated as an equal is bound to be there but normally including relatively homogenous, democratic polities are not exempted from that. Think of how the blacks in the United States thinks of themselves as American citizens. They always think that they are treated as somewhat lesser, poorer cousins. L.K.: So, you have nicely alluded to the western sphere and showed that there are certain similarities between Indian and the western world. I would like to know if there is anything about the Indian idea of citizenship that travelled back to Europe- conceptually? T.K.: My own view is that, although it is unfortunately not acknowledged by western theorists, I always see that that what we write, and I don t write only on India, I write on other countries also, I also believe that I do theory. But it is not accepted by your peoplethe western people. Because they always think that ideas flow from there and it is that we are on the receiving end. But let me say the other way. Now,- we started, if you have seen the Indian constitutions first line is, India is a union of stated. But, this is a brilliant idea. In 1950 the constitution was promulgated, whereas the European Union came into being in Which date, ah, I don t remember the exact date. So, you also talk about a 6

7 union of states. The difference is, a set of different sovereign states melt into a union of states. In our case a set of non- sovereign states- we are all states, provincial states,- kept together and created a union. The process was reverse. But, the European people never accepted that we had even xx (29.19) had the Indian union in mind. They won t accept it. But the reality is that we existed before you came into being. And B) the whole idea of multi-national citizenship, the whole idea of multi-cultural citizenship is very much an Indian contribution but remains unacknowledged. See, everybody talks about the term, - my good friend from Hungary who became a Canadian citizen- whats his name?- who talks about multicultural citizenship? There is a reference to that in this book also. He did it with reference to Canada. And it s now accepted as an idea-- multi-cultural citizenship. Why? Because, the North- American situation warranted such a notion. In Germany you never talked about multi-cultural citizenship, in Japan they never talked about multicultural citizenship, in Portugal they never talked about it. Because, there was a complete unison between citizenship an nationality. If you are not a national you can t be a citizen. You can over a period of time become a citizen through a process of nationalising yourself, like in France, I talk about frenchification. Through frenchification the Algerians could become French citizens. So, that s the process. But here, I can remain a Christian, I can remain a Kerala fellow, I can remain a Malayalam speaker and yet to be a complete citizen of this country. So, who has really produced the idea of multi-national, multi-cultural citizenship? India, and India alone! But, that remain,- I repeat,- unacknowledged. So, if you talk in terms of single notion, in the context we are talking that India contributed, is this. And further I would say we have very successfully decoupled citizenship and nationality. You know, I remain a Tamil or a Bengali- that s my nationality, but I m an Indian citizen. But that s not possible in most of the European countries, where the Idea of citizenship in a sense arose. So we have revolutionized the concept of citizenship by decoupling nationality and citizenship. But let me alert you, my own friends, fellow social scientists, will not accept this. They always talk about India as an nation-state. I think that is a most unacceptable idea, there is no link between the empirical reality that you are talking about- ended up in the notion of nation- state. Because nation-state by definition wanted to bring about a homogenous society. But I say India is not a nation-state. India is a national-state. A national-state is one where diversity is celebrated, cultural diversity. So we can think in terms of citizenship which consent national or sometimes religious if the two are bifurcated identities. And that is the singular contribution of citizenship in the Indian context. L.K.: Is this also, or is there anything else about that Indian notion of citizenship which conflicts with the western notion of citizenship? T.K.: I won t say that it really conflicts. The west is gradually learning. The West is improving if I may say so. You can quote on me, I am not afraid. I said that on so many places all over Europe. But they are reluctant to accept it. That s the problem. Because by definition, the West had that privilege of creating and than idealise. Think of nation-state. You created it- Westphalia treaty. Than everything followed. But then, things than happened from the other side also. And therefore, if you ask me what is the great contribution of the idea of citizenship in modern times, post-colonial times, I ve already said that it is multi-national citizenship although people don t use these things and also 7

8 multicultural in the sense- I make a distinction between nationality and ethnicity. This distinction is already given there. Now, I consider myself to be a national in Kerala where culture and territory are in unison, they are fused. But the moment I get out of Kerala, in spite of the fact that I am living here for forty years, they don t accept me as a local man, as a Hindi speaker- I mean as a local resident, they still call me, as I told you, Madassi. That means I am not a national, I am an ethnic. So there is a distinction between nationality and ethnicity. Ethnicity in my understanding is a product of dissociation between territory and culture. L.K.: So nationality and ethnicity as you said are quite different from one another and conflicting also. In what way has the Indian state and have the Indian political elites tried to tackle this problem and have they tried to instil the idea of citizenship into the ordinary man? T.K.: The great idea here is the idea of single citizenship. See, even in the United States of America you have double citizenship. You are a citizen of California and you are a citizen of the federal state. But here we have only single citizenship. And single citizenship here would mean two other things. Free movement of the people from one area to another area. You can go anywhere in India. And you can also take a job anywhere in India- by definition. Just like in the European Union now. Earlier it was not possible, but now you can go to another nation or state and take up a job,- that idea is there. But, here again there are some protective measures. In certain areas, particularly in our tribal areas, we have prevented it, because people of the rest of India can swarm these areas, take over and then the local population may become a minority. And therefore there are certain restrictions put, particularly in tribal areas there are certain pockets. Otherwise the idea of single citizenship, that an Indian can travel, can study, can take employment anywhere in India is a great idea. In the case of other democratic countries also it is true, but here it is much more complex, because after all if you are a German it is but natural that you can travel anywhere in Germany. The problem comes only when you are migrate to France or Portugal earlier times. But once the Union came into being- European Union came into being- this restrictions are at least partly averted. But this restriction was never put into force in the Indian case. L.K.: Finally, what were the mechanisms and also the symbols and processes with which the idea of citizenship was brought to life in India? So, in other words, how did the Indian state try to imagine the Indian citizen? T.K.: The single most common identity in India is that of citizenship. People ask me this question in the media, in academic discussions,- what is it that make an Indian? The only answer that I can give is citizenship. Indians are different in terms of religion, in terms of language in terms of the food they eat. See, if I come to Germany there is something like a German cuisine, but there, there are dozens of cuisines. There is a Gujarati cuisine, there is the Kashmiri cuisine there is a Tamil cuisine,- there is no Indian cuisine. Similarly, dress. Even the pan Indian dress, namely women wear the Sari. Sari is worn in different ways between a Gujarati woman and a Tamil woman and a Bengali woman. Also the Sari may be worn in different ways by the upper caste and the lower castes. So, 8

9 dresses of variety are multiple, food is different, music- there is no Indian music, there are many Indian music. Architecture. There is no Indian Architecture but many varieties of that. Dance forms. In reverse there is nothing that one can really talk about in the singular about India,- except citizenship. So citizenship is that great idea that gives us communality, which gives us a sense of sharing. My Indianity comes from citizenship, there is no other source. People talk about civilisation. Yes, there is a civilisation, but if you take a civilisation review, the Sri Lankan, the Bangladeshi, the Pakistani, the Afghan they are all part of one civilisation. Therefore, within a civilisation there could be different states,- just like the European civilisation, there are several states. Whether it is France or Germany of Portugal. Similarly, to talk about a civilisational unity in the context of an citizenship is a misnomer because there is a Pakistani citizen, there is a Bangladeshi citizen and there is an Indian citizen. Similarly, as I already said, take the cultural fact. It s so different, and therefore the singular factor which integrates all the people of India is citizenship. But I am not saying that citizenship is institutionalized completely or internalized by individual people completely. People still think, as you indicated earlier, well, I am a second class, third class citizen. But that is an internal feeling and that feeling can only fought successfully over a long period time. After all, if I want to defend my country, what I don t want actually, we are only sixty years old! Please remember, people,- I mean, the first democracy of the world is several hundred years old. Give us five hundred years, probably we will also mature. But, within sixty years we have not yet become a democratic country where all citizens have the perception that we are all equal, justice is available to us in equal measure in our context. No! But that s a process and I partly explained that this problem can not be tackled simply in terms of political factors, but also in social factorial terms. L.K.: Do symbols also help in this process, I am thinking of the symbol of the figure of Bharat Mata standing in front of India s geographical map, would that be a symbol for all Indians? T.K.: See the problem there is- yes and no! There are people who have no difficulty, and most people don t have any difficulty in accepting Bharat Mata. But at least to a group of people, particularly I say, from the Muslims there it is viewed as a Hindu motive. So, that predominance of Hinduism manifesting in symbols sometimes creates difficulties. So, again, is the social structure a problem, suppose, we didn t,- we would have only Hindus in this country the notion of Bharat Mata would not have created a difficulty. But this is also a problem in other contexts. You have heard about, I am sure, (my?) national anthem. If you read in the national anthem carefully you will find many parts of India are not mentioned. And some parts which are mentioned are now not part of India. I ll give you one example, Sindh. Sindh is mentioned, but Sindh is now properly in Pakistan. But that national anthem or that song which is accepted as national anthem was created in the colonial time. On the arrival of a British King or Queen or dignitary doesn t matter by the great poet of Indian origin. So he had xxx (? 43.53/53) at that point the context has changed but we have not refashioned the anthem. In other words there are always historical hangovers in every every nation every state. I am sure if you examine European history because after all Germany is also a product of consolidation of many principalities and parts, there are problems. But to an extend there is a social structural 9

10 homogeneity you can overcome that easily. However much you want, the Union wants, the people of Belgium will always insist that their beer is slightly better than yours. And if I go to cologne they will say here is the best beer- stand and drink, or wine whatever it is. I ve been to cologne a number of times. So, the point I am making is, to that extend there are cultural variations, to that extend the so called complete integration will not come. And therefore India again becomes a model- unity in diversity, celebrating the diversity. We are different, but difference does not mean inferior or superior. Differences have to be accepted, to be recognized. All this big people- I mean theorists who are talking about recognizing differences. I am sure actually if they had known about India a little more at least recognized that they are know a little more (???) the theory would have gone in a different direction- for us it is nothing new! This are lived realities of every Indian citizen. L.K.: Prof. Oommen, thank you for this conversation. Weiter: