The Pan-Indian Identity

Three classic instances spring to mind. One was the Freudian de-bate about sexuality. Tribes of sociologists pontificated several dec-ades about the maturity of various sexual responses. When Masters and Johnson actually determined the biological underpinnings, the entire absurdity was exposed.

Another ongoing debate is about the possible influences of heredity and environment upon hum-an intelligence. The Bell Curve sparked a sociologist storm. There, two people pr-oposed that intelligence is completely determined by here-dity. The book was labeled racist for obvious reasons and alternately hailed and vilified.

It strikes a layman that the hyp-othesis may be experimentally verifiable, though neither the co-auth-ors, nor their detractors had either the training or inclination to attempt it. The experiments would have to be conducted by geneticists, and st-atisticians and it would remove mu-ch grist from the sociological mill.

Coming home, Indian sociologists often go through much existential angst about the absence of a pan-Indian identity. After all, Indians identify themselves by their caste and creed, the religious faith of their forefathers, the languages they speak, etc. There is no quintessential Indian there are only Bengalis, Tamils, Khasis, Hindi-heartlanders and other odd-bods. There are Brahmins and Yadavs and neo-Buddhists and several million other categories of sub-divisions. Indians hail from Bulandshahar or Palani, never from India.

This is considered par for the course for a 50-year-young nation forged in the blood of Partition. It provides sociologists much scope for taking learned positions, just as it allows politicians license to build vote-banks of various hues. Some seem to feel a pan-Indian identity must be forged willy-nilly. Others burble about unity in diversity and some complain about the moral majority hijacking the legitimate interests of minorities.

Still others speak darkly of the desirability of a social revolution which would wipe out the current structure and replace it by classification according to dialectical norms. Hegel, Kant and Acharya Narendra Dev are quoted freely by various factions. If it wasnt for those divisions, some of JNUs more prominent faculty members would lack tenure and half the make-work of Indian politicians would grind to a sickening halt. Not that anyone would mind.

All this while though, a band of de-dicated researchers have actually been working overtime to define a pan-Indian identity. They have been ignored by sociologists since they are merely bio-geneticists, medical researchers and other scientific kill-joys. However, they have been successful.

There is indeed a pan-Indian identity and there always has been. An Indian is twice as likely to die of heart disease or suffer non-insulin diabetes than a citizen of most other nation. He does not need to speak Hindi or abjure the eating of meat or do anything specific. His Indianess is defined genetically by abnormally high levels of lipoprotein B aka bad cholesterol. While this should make sociologists happy, there is a small problem. A pan-Indian shares this characteristic with a pan-Pakistani and a pan-Bangladeshi. Maybe that affinity can be woven into the Akhand Bharat theory?