Have you heard someone point at an Indian-American and say, "Oh! He is an ABCD"?
ABCD, American Born Confused Desi is the title given to Indian kids born abroad, especially the States. It is believed that the cultural shock of growing up in an 'alien' environment and being far from our "traditions", "cultural heritage" and "mitti ki khusboo", these children suffer from an identity crisis. For instance, unable to decide if they are American-Indian or Indian-American. Whether to speak Hindi with an English accent or English with an Hindi accent.
I don't have any trouble with that classification. There are desis and there are confused desis. These desis can be born in any country and if born in America are ABCDs. What irks me is when people think that being confused is the prerogative of only the Indian diaspora.
If it wasn't clear from my previous post, which raised many questions and answered none, I am a confused desi. Very.
Yup! I am an IBCD. Indian Born Confused Desi.
We IBCDs aren't much different from ABCDs. You see, I wondered if my identity was of an Indian, Tamilian or Brahmin. As an ABCD, I might have wondered if I was American or Indian and perhaps Tamil or Brahmin too. I may not seriously consider my identity as a Brahmin but may use a substitute - 'Hindu'.
Likewise, our regional status fades into insignificance when we go out of the country. Not really!!? Let me put a qualifier. Most times, our regional identity fades into insignificance when we go out of the country. Tamil, Kannadiga, Bihari, Punjabi; we get along well. We are the Indian fraternity.
Even if it didn't, it is only an order of magnitude higher than an IBCD. Surely, we IBCDs deserve some recognition.
Maybe I just want company, but I think that being confused is good and that we need more messed-up people like me. Because, the opposite of being confused is blind acceptance. It is not that you know the answers to all questions; you simply don't ask any.
Time whizzes by and I, I write of glimpses I steal
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Identity
A while back, one of my housemates asked me this question - How would you describe yourself? Are you first and foremost an Indian, a Tamilian or a Brahmin?
My inquisitor was one-fourth Kiwi, quarter-Hungarian, half- Islander and has been in Australia for well over three decades. She was born a Jew, grew up an atheist, dabbled with Christianity and then found Buddhism. Things weren't made any easier by the fact that she was a lesbian. Somewhere down the line she must have wondered who she really was and I am guessing she found the answer. The point is, her identity was not a 'given'. She had to find it herself. And perhaps, by the process of finding it, she has become a better person.
Fed an intensive diet of 'patriotic' films I was tempted to respond with "I am an Indian first. Everything else comes after that". But does it really. Who am I?
Yes, I am an Indian, because I was born here, because my passport says so. But what is it to be 'Indian'? How would someone define Indianness? What other than Geography makes one Indian? When my grandfather was born, the concept of India as it exists now did not prevail. India, as a land that stretches from Kashmir to Kanyakumari (minus Pakistan and Bangladesh) was an invention, that is only 60 years old. India, the land of Indus has a much longer history but was not exactly a whole unit. There were many nations in it, and my nationality (and thereby my identity) would have been Pallava or Pandya or Chola or Maratha or Mughal at various times. According to which army was conquering . I was even British for a while.
Yes, I am a Tamil, because I speak the language, because I was born and raised in a Tamil speaking society. But does that make me a Tamilian before an Indian. Again, we don't know how many generations ago, my ancestors moved to Tamil land. As recent as 20 years ago, my grandfather couldn't read and write Tamil well. He was taught Sanskrit and was more comfortable with it than Tamil. Clearly the regional fervour and linguistic jingoism were also inventions of the last 5-6 decades. And the Dravidian movement did not consider us, Brahmins, as Tamils. Or did they?
Which brings us to being a Brahmin. Yes, I am a Brahmin and I have a thin rope across my shoulders to prove it. Every year I change that rope and recite the Gayathri Mantra 1008 times. Being a Brahmin has clearly defined rules and there are rites and practices unique to us.
So, does that make me a Brahmin before anything else? What am I, if I remove the tag of Brahmin?
Which begs the question: 'What exactly is an identity?'. According to one of the dictionaries, identity is the condition of being oneself or itself, and not another.
Then this raises a new question: can one be all three; an Indian, a Tamil and a Brahmin? Even if that was possible, if I were to make one, my primary identity, what would it be? Any guesses.
Somehow I feel that what defines me the best (OK! the least controversial one) is, Aeronautical Engineer.
My inquisitor was one-fourth Kiwi, quarter-Hungarian, half- Islander and has been in Australia for well over three decades. She was born a Jew, grew up an atheist, dabbled with Christianity and then found Buddhism. Things weren't made any easier by the fact that she was a lesbian. Somewhere down the line she must have wondered who she really was and I am guessing she found the answer. The point is, her identity was not a 'given'. She had to find it herself. And perhaps, by the process of finding it, she has become a better person.
Fed an intensive diet of 'patriotic' films I was tempted to respond with "I am an Indian first. Everything else comes after that". But does it really. Who am I?
Yes, I am an Indian, because I was born here, because my passport says so. But what is it to be 'Indian'? How would someone define Indianness? What other than Geography makes one Indian? When my grandfather was born, the concept of India as it exists now did not prevail. India, as a land that stretches from Kashmir to Kanyakumari (minus Pakistan and Bangladesh) was an invention, that is only 60 years old. India, the land of Indus has a much longer history but was not exactly a whole unit. There were many nations in it, and my nationality (and thereby my identity) would have been Pallava or Pandya or Chola or Maratha or Mughal at various times. According to which army was conquering . I was even British for a while.
Yes, I am a Tamil, because I speak the language, because I was born and raised in a Tamil speaking society. But does that make me a Tamilian before an Indian. Again, we don't know how many generations ago, my ancestors moved to Tamil land. As recent as 20 years ago, my grandfather couldn't read and write Tamil well. He was taught Sanskrit and was more comfortable with it than Tamil. Clearly the regional fervour and linguistic jingoism were also inventions of the last 5-6 decades. And the Dravidian movement did not consider us, Brahmins, as Tamils. Or did they?
Which brings us to being a Brahmin. Yes, I am a Brahmin and I have a thin rope across my shoulders to prove it. Every year I change that rope and recite the Gayathri Mantra 1008 times. Being a Brahmin has clearly defined rules and there are rites and practices unique to us.
So, does that make me a Brahmin before anything else? What am I, if I remove the tag of Brahmin?
Which begs the question: 'What exactly is an identity?'. According to one of the dictionaries, identity is the condition of being oneself or itself, and not another.
Then this raises a new question: can one be all three; an Indian, a Tamil and a Brahmin? Even if that was possible, if I were to make one, my primary identity, what would it be? Any guesses.
Somehow I feel that what defines me the best (OK! the least controversial one) is, Aeronautical Engineer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)