Since Megasthenes, scholars from all over the world have sought to prepare a checklist for what defines ‘Indian-ness’ and most have been caught in the caste-village-region trap. This is because the key to understanding the Indian man lies with his mother
Inheritance, be it genetic, psychological or emotional, is a fact of life. It contributes to the shaping of individuals, communities, nations and regions. The issue is of defining the boundaries of a community, a nation or a region. However, that the heritage variable exists, is also beyond question. But as a nation we tend to be in denial when we are faced with historical truths.
It is unfortunately true that the way this factor shapes what comes between yesterday and tomorrow is not taken seriously enough. To develop meaningfully and in an enduring fashion, one must grasp the preceding formative influences on what one is trying to shape. It is in this space that paradigms of management and development, need to be redefined.
Writings on Indian identity are varied. Megasthenes, Huan Tsang, Alberuni, Ibnbatuta and others have attempted to identify the common denominator of the ‘Indian’ and understand his core values and traits. Attempts to reduce the ‘randomness’ of the Indian experience to managerial and developmental frames of comprehension, in the field of culture, is a challenge for understanding models of decision making.
Similarly several anthropological explorations of ‘Indian-ness’ carried out by people seeking to discover the ‘Indian’ rather than to understand it, have been caught up in the clap trap of emphasising the caste, the village, the community, the ritual and more. Though these explorations may be interesting to an unfamiliar mind exploring Indian ethos, its relevance for the Indian situation itself, remains unclear.
The new generation of Indian is more mobile and markedly less regional. Mobility usually began with the preceding generation — the first or second generation of professional men in India. The new Indian has been educated away from home, been to an university in another part of the country, and perhaps has also been abroad.
A concern for the Indian value system and the Indian mind may appear, in the managerial and developmental context, as a tool to understand generic underpinnings of Indian behaviour. It is also necessary to see to what extent these assumptions impinge upon problem solving, and resource optimisation.
Writing on Indian childhood, psychoanalyst Sudhir Kakar emphasised that the predisposition of the Indian mother to follow, rather than lead, with regard to her child’s inclination and with his tempo of development, does not spring only from maternal pride. In part, it reflects traditional Indian life. In this part given the infant mortality rate, the survival of a child, especially a son, is often a source of pride. The boy is treated with differential care as he would later support the parents economically. Importantly, the son’s participation in rituals of death and mourning is a guarantee of religious merit and righteous passage into the next life.
One of the less-emphasised factors of social reform, and in raising the status of the girl child, is that parents with daughters only are without a successor to take care of their religious needs after their passing. Empirically, even several educated Indian men, raised in the West, believe that once married, their wife is an integral part of their own family network. Any relationship with the wife’s parents can only be a concession to the inherited biological relationship. But this debate cannot be resolved here.
However, one can recognise here that a substantial part of the ritualistic roles in the Indian ethos is preserved for the male. This, coupled with the deference and indulgence by the Indian mother, gives to the Indian male psyche the unique twist, which parades at the workplace — often in the search of recognition.
We cannot wish away what we have inherited. What we can do is intelligently pick from it.