RSS Feed (xml)
The Indian ambassador, Pavan Varma, also a scholar and writer, has authored more than a dozen books; his latest being ‘Becoming Indian: The Unfinished Revolution of Culture and Identity”. In view of the recent discussions on culture and identity in the country, Kuensel spoke with the ambassador on the much debated subject.
1. Your views about Bhutan’s emphasis on preserving its cultural identity?
Bhutan, in many respects, is a role model for other countries in south Asia. For one, it was never colonised and, therefore, there was no rupture in the continuity of its own culture. Secondly, there is an understanding in the leadership here, provided by their Majesties the Kings and now by the democratically elected government, of the need to preserve this culture and identity. I think this is important because, in a rapidly globalising world, people should know where they belong, where they come from and that gives them their unique place in this world.
2. Is there really too much emphasis on physical aspects of cultural identity that some people think they’re just a façade?
Culture is not easy to define, but it is a way of life. It’s a collective of beliefs, faith, community, relations and attitudes; but that’s one part of it because that is the inner journey. That inner journey must reflect also in external attributes, in terms of clothes, housing, food, celebration of festivals, the arts and culture. The two can’t be separated and a mechanical emphasis only on the external features isn’t the answer, although they are important. That’s when it becomes a façade. If there is an organic relationship between the inner journey and its external attributes, then you’re talking of a cohesive and organic culture.
3. Where does cultural identity end and cultural nationalism begin?
Cultural identity and the need to preserve it should not translate into cultural nationalism. The loyalty to what is your own heritage and your sensitivity to be who you are should not translate into xenophobia or chauvinism against other cultures. In fact, the opposite is true. Those, who are confidently rooted in their own culture, are more confident interlocutors with other cultures, display greater understanding to the cultural diversity and are better bridges between two cultures. But those, who are not, display the insecurity that leads to either cultural nationalism or intolerance.
4. Why the need for so much stress on cultural identity as though it would peter out?
No culture can insulate itself from the possibility of change and there are many meeting points for all cultures, because there are certain universal values that animate all enlightened cultures. However, the fact that change is inevitable does not mean that change has to be anarchic or self-defeating. We must accept change, but must also see if we can influence the content, the pace and the direction of change to understand what we need to preserve and what we can borrow. That cultural compass is a very important tool in today’s world. If you are a mature culture, you should be able to have that discrimination, that application of mind because you cannot become an island unto yourself.
5. Your views on the argument that some elite Bhutanese are using the cultural identity argument to maintain the hierarchical structure and retain their supremacy.
Culture cannot become for anyone any reason to blindly fossilise the past. It can’t become a reason to perpetuate mechanically the old in opposition to the new. But this doesn’t mean that the new is always better than the old. Enlightened cultures, rooted as they are, should be able to resist the manipulation of culture for short-term goals and be able to look beyond to the greater good. Good, that is, of those people, who have managed to preserve their cultural identities in an era when such identities are in real danger of being eroded, through a process of cooption, which is the sub-text in the cultural field of a globalising world.
6. How about the argument of engaging too deep into preservation of cultural and identity causing the country to lag behind?
I don’t agree that being conscious about preserving your cultural identity is synonymous with primitivism. I believe that you can be a revolutionary thinker wearing a gho or a leading scientist in a home, which is reflective of architectural ethos of your country. It’s only when societies and nations become intellectually brittle that they focus more on the preservation of the external and ignore the empowerment, which comes from being a spokesperson of your own cultural ethos and identity. It empowers you and only those people, who are thus empowered to win the respect of those with whom they must inevitably interact in a world, which has often been compelled to a global village.
7. Where is architecture’s place in the whole debate on cultural identity?
A house, home or a building is a window to culture, because of the manner in which they are built and the way in which they apportion space reflects the cultural priorities of a people. In a Bhutanese home, there will be space for an altar. This may not be the most comfortable home or the most functional allocation of space, but it nevertheless corresponds to a certain cultural ethos. With modernity and new possibilities in architecture, there could be modifications, which add to the architectural competence of a building, enhance its functionality and improve its services. These can always be incorporated, but it is a mistake to believe that you can take a house or a form of architecture from anywhere and transplant it in some other place. It doesn’t happen so and I strongly believe it should not.
8. While we’re trying hard to promote and preserve our national language, English continues to be a preferred medium for communication. Where are we headed in that context?
If Bhutan is seeking to preserve Dzongkha, it’s a laudable endeavour. There’s a language of culture and a language of communication. English is indispensable as a language of communication to interface with the globalising world. But, whether for Bhutan or for India, English cannot become the language of your culture. The language of your culture is the language in which you weep, cry, abuse, compose and create. It is a window to your folklore, to your traditions, lullabies and culture. No greater tragedy can happen to a people, where a language of communication overwhelms or displaces a language of culture. People must persevere to preserve the language of their culture, in case of Bhutan the Dzongkha, and incorporate the many vernaculars in Bhutan, and a language of communication, which has a place of its own. But we must know the distinction between the two.
Source: Kuenselonline
1. Your views about Bhutan’s emphasis on preserving its cultural identity?
Bhutan, in many respects, is a role model for other countries in south Asia. For one, it was never colonised and, therefore, there was no rupture in the continuity of its own culture. Secondly, there is an understanding in the leadership here, provided by their Majesties the Kings and now by the democratically elected government, of the need to preserve this culture and identity. I think this is important because, in a rapidly globalising world, people should know where they belong, where they come from and that gives them their unique place in this world.
2. Is there really too much emphasis on physical aspects of cultural identity that some people think they’re just a façade?
Culture is not easy to define, but it is a way of life. It’s a collective of beliefs, faith, community, relations and attitudes; but that’s one part of it because that is the inner journey. That inner journey must reflect also in external attributes, in terms of clothes, housing, food, celebration of festivals, the arts and culture. The two can’t be separated and a mechanical emphasis only on the external features isn’t the answer, although they are important. That’s when it becomes a façade. If there is an organic relationship between the inner journey and its external attributes, then you’re talking of a cohesive and organic culture.
3. Where does cultural identity end and cultural nationalism begin?
Cultural identity and the need to preserve it should not translate into cultural nationalism. The loyalty to what is your own heritage and your sensitivity to be who you are should not translate into xenophobia or chauvinism against other cultures. In fact, the opposite is true. Those, who are confidently rooted in their own culture, are more confident interlocutors with other cultures, display greater understanding to the cultural diversity and are better bridges between two cultures. But those, who are not, display the insecurity that leads to either cultural nationalism or intolerance.
4. Why the need for so much stress on cultural identity as though it would peter out?
No culture can insulate itself from the possibility of change and there are many meeting points for all cultures, because there are certain universal values that animate all enlightened cultures. However, the fact that change is inevitable does not mean that change has to be anarchic or self-defeating. We must accept change, but must also see if we can influence the content, the pace and the direction of change to understand what we need to preserve and what we can borrow. That cultural compass is a very important tool in today’s world. If you are a mature culture, you should be able to have that discrimination, that application of mind because you cannot become an island unto yourself.
5. Your views on the argument that some elite Bhutanese are using the cultural identity argument to maintain the hierarchical structure and retain their supremacy.
Culture cannot become for anyone any reason to blindly fossilise the past. It can’t become a reason to perpetuate mechanically the old in opposition to the new. But this doesn’t mean that the new is always better than the old. Enlightened cultures, rooted as they are, should be able to resist the manipulation of culture for short-term goals and be able to look beyond to the greater good. Good, that is, of those people, who have managed to preserve their cultural identities in an era when such identities are in real danger of being eroded, through a process of cooption, which is the sub-text in the cultural field of a globalising world.
6. How about the argument of engaging too deep into preservation of cultural and identity causing the country to lag behind?
I don’t agree that being conscious about preserving your cultural identity is synonymous with primitivism. I believe that you can be a revolutionary thinker wearing a gho or a leading scientist in a home, which is reflective of architectural ethos of your country. It’s only when societies and nations become intellectually brittle that they focus more on the preservation of the external and ignore the empowerment, which comes from being a spokesperson of your own cultural ethos and identity. It empowers you and only those people, who are thus empowered to win the respect of those with whom they must inevitably interact in a world, which has often been compelled to a global village.
7. Where is architecture’s place in the whole debate on cultural identity?
A house, home or a building is a window to culture, because of the manner in which they are built and the way in which they apportion space reflects the cultural priorities of a people. In a Bhutanese home, there will be space for an altar. This may not be the most comfortable home or the most functional allocation of space, but it nevertheless corresponds to a certain cultural ethos. With modernity and new possibilities in architecture, there could be modifications, which add to the architectural competence of a building, enhance its functionality and improve its services. These can always be incorporated, but it is a mistake to believe that you can take a house or a form of architecture from anywhere and transplant it in some other place. It doesn’t happen so and I strongly believe it should not.
8. While we’re trying hard to promote and preserve our national language, English continues to be a preferred medium for communication. Where are we headed in that context?
If Bhutan is seeking to preserve Dzongkha, it’s a laudable endeavour. There’s a language of culture and a language of communication. English is indispensable as a language of communication to interface with the globalising world. But, whether for Bhutan or for India, English cannot become the language of your culture. The language of your culture is the language in which you weep, cry, abuse, compose and create. It is a window to your folklore, to your traditions, lullabies and culture. No greater tragedy can happen to a people, where a language of communication overwhelms or displaces a language of culture. People must persevere to preserve the language of their culture, in case of Bhutan the Dzongkha, and incorporate the many vernaculars in Bhutan, and a language of communication, which has a place of its own. But we must know the distinction between the two.
Source: Kuenselonline
Posts
