A message to myself- The self who began the journey.
"Hi, I am you. But I am not that which you wanted to become."
"You can call me Kunju or Goutham. He'd plans to become somebody, also, I don't know what I want to become."
"I though you were very flexible, but you're not."
"You don't know anything. You need to learn a lot."
"We don't have to be as scared of everything as we were."
"Where you were, I am now. Have fun."
"When we meet next time, it'll be like my time with 'Andhe'."
"I am your reflection and your shadow in the dark."
"Don't do work like this again. Your mind is going to explode"
"My confidence was low, now it is higher."
"You though you were 1, but you were actually 0- but, I love you and me very much."
"Hi, I am Nihal."
As an Indian student in France, the so called “college” experience is different than what one would expect. Letting go of the fact that one is away from home for the first time, in a country where there are extreme language barriers and one has to cook for themselves, the experience, according to me at least was somewhat of an awakening. Politically, I have always been active. Whether in the form of debate or protests, my political alignment has always been a part of my identity. Unlike Khursheed however, I was and am more of a person who runs towards conflict rather than away. Despite this, I cannot deny that I too have felt the need to leave, to experience life in a different form of surrounding. Perhaps, that was the why I left the country for my higher education.
Khursheed’s idea of the Kashmiri conflict is something that gave me a different perspective on the issue. The idea that freedoms negates identity, and that the fight is a collective effort not for the kashmiri people but freedom for the individual was something that I hadn’t thought of before. To me, it gave a different dimension altogether to the complex topic that is Kashmir.
In France, the South Asian identity is not one that is too complex. One is either from South Asia or not, and it doesn’t really matter if one is from Pakistan or India. However, on a personal level, one’s nation begins to matter more. The need to be “Indian” becomes more prominent, not for the society that one lives in but for a personal distinction from the others around me. As an Indian student, we want to make ourselves distinctly different than those around us, not make sure that we are not mixed up as Pakistani or Bangladeshi or Sri Lankan. This is not due to prejudice, but for a need to retain our link to the country we have left, and to create a connection with the country we now live in.
Khursheed’s interview made me think of how each person is different, on how our roots define, to a large extent, our ideologies. Just as how there are many different views on Kashmir by the Kashmiri youth, there are many different ways on one deals with the identity of an Indian in France. Our identities have so many different layers with each layers having different memories attached to them. We make these identities, deciding on what takes preference where. As an Indian in France, I am first South Asian, then Indian. As an Indian in India, I am just a student with strong political and social ideologies. In reality, I hope I am all of these.
In conversation with Deepu in a small room, occupied by a bed and an old computer, that generously allowed for two more chairs for us to sit down, and me to spill my tea over.
Our conversation with Deepu began with the concept of Identity. He spoke about an identity (like ‘muslim’) not having universally shared values as a given. A bangalore muslim has no place to flee in the face of persecution. They have lived here and will have to continue living here. We create our own codes of conducts and values that define our belonging to a particular space at a particular time. The notions of solidarity and community then appear to be highly contextual and time bound. He spoke of even political leanings, ideational agreements forming identities- not wanting to associate with someone who is patriarchal, so your circle of friends only ends up having those who largely agree with you. He commented on the difference between shedding an identity- which is not possible to negating an identity-which one might continuously or periodically do anyway. The identity cannot really be shed because it has been internalised, open declarations against privilege doesn’t mean you aren’t privileged anymore. But there can be a conscious negation of the privilege you are receiving. In that sense he spoke of different identities forming and dissolving, either consciously or unconsciously. He mentioned the first time he gave a speech in Kannada on stage, he made references to how he was from the outside but is now working with them and they must see him as one of them.The act of silence or withdrawal, he thought was still a political act of identity- merely one of claiming a different identity. As a Malayali who moved to Bangalore and chose to make a living by making films and activism, he seems to have continuously felt the need to be accepted as part of the community here.There is a sense of having to negotiate one’s identity to make the other feel comfortable about differences.
We started off with the exodus question after giving him a brief idea of what the project, Unreserved, is. He spoke about how discriminatory practices over a period of time go unnoticed until a trigger incident bursts that bubble of unknowing and creates this sense of insecurity. It isn’t like no one from the north-east felt safe around muslims in Bangalore or all muslims wanted them out. One of the reasons there was a palpable tension between these two communities in particular is because there is a higher populace from the north-east in muslim dominated areas. It isn’t like Hindus are particularly welcoming of outsiders, in fact the areas they might be living in goes untouched because of the majority privilege and migrants tend to settle in smaller neighbourhoods. Food habits are as much an excuse for upper caste Hindus to not rent houses to people from North East as they are to avoid Muslims. This again goes back to identity and belonging being a continuous process of becoming rather than a fixed state of being.
At the time, Deepu was working with muslim networks, to use mosques as a safe space for those from the north-east who feel threatened. The issue was spoken about at prayer services to encourage muslims to create a more accepting atmosphere. There were articles in urdu newspapers which also called for active muslim participation in reassurance. At times of conflict, while there is a sense of brotherhood in protection and standing up even through violence, there is also the complementary idea of protecting the dignity or name of the community and to actively discourage violence. The need for the muslim community to provide this assurance came from their own insecurities. They were anxious that these isolated acts will again become an excuse to corner them. When the initial incident of violence/attack outside Central Mall happened, the first people to arrive at the spot were the local muslims of the neighbourhood. At every police station that Deepu visited during those times, he would find some ABVP and BJP guys present. Why would a Hindu nationalist identity be keen to associate with a community which is largely Christian?
Deepu spoke of his discomfort with political assertions made by certain organisations at the time, making declarations of conditions in Bangalore being unsafe for north-eastern migrants and stressing on intolerance. He believed that this exacerbated the situation and what was needed was reassurance of acceptance. This happened around Ramzan, so there were mosques that opened its doors to peoples from the north-east to partake in their celebrations. A strange form of identity assertion, difference and conflict.
The other point he raised was about how when a conflict of identity occurs, other identities get formed. Is there such a thing as a north-east community? The differences amongst them might be strong to the point that even during a time of conflict they are not necessarily united in opposition (e.g. Meities vs kukis). The majority in what is mainland India creates this vague ‘other’ -north-east community, developing countries, Global South, third tier, South Asia. He would be from India when he steps outside of India, but within India he’s from Kerala or he is a Malayali.
We then meandered into the idea of values forming identity and while he initially said he didn’t think how that could be possible, it came in again at a different entry point. The reason he said he didn’t think values could give collective identity is because he thought factors like religion,caste and class base their principles on a set of values. So it’s not really the values but the idea of common values under these tags of caste or class that really form communal identities. At a later juncture, when we were discussing the differences in forms of protest, the difference between dissent and protest- he happened to mention protests happening because of a collective formed through values. Solidarities with an issue or peoples that take place when someone external to the issue finds commonalities in value or ideology and becomes an ally. Within the protest space identities are constantly organised. You and I may go and support a group that is protesting. Macroscopically, we all agree to some values, but we are also different in a way that we are only supporting those who are fighting for their cause.
This also connected to the different tones of conversation that we could take while talking about identity. He didn’t seem to have a particular preference, or an argument for one over the other. He maintained that there will always be several ways to talk about the same thing. He remembered a sequence from a film called ‘Balkan Rhapsodies’ where friends are smoking cigarettes and sharing jokes as we see bomb blasts in the background.
by Samragni Dasgupta