We the people and Amoral Familism

It was 26^th January and as I drove from South Delhi to NOIDA I encountered very heavy traffic. Delhi's residents seem to be in a perpetual hurry here. They honk as if the world has gone deaf or rather to make the world deaf. They jostle with you in a car, most of the time they drive as if they have just graduated from driving a two wheeler and in a car they can still squeeze through those little spaces as they used to do in their two wheelers. They park and double-park without any worry of traffic rules nor do they care about the problems that others face because of it.

Suddenly I realised that it was 26^th January and India's republic had turned 60. There were cheers all across the media. Some people were critical of what we haven't achieved in these years, however most were upbeat about the past and the future.

I started to wonder do people even understand the meaning of a Republic. Do they know their responsibilities for it? However we are a Republic and we have been one for a long time. We have survived the nascent problems on being one and on the whole we are solving ones which exits. But ......

The traffic of Delhi was showing me that we were living not in a Republic but in anarchy. Why this selfishness? Why do we defecate in the open without a worry of cleanliness or the unhygienic condition it would bring to the residents? Why are we so unaware of our larger social responsibilities? Why do we keep our homes clean but throw the garbage on the streets? Isn't all this against the basic premise of being a Republic.

Now I know that most people would argue that Republic is mostly a political idea of governing. However in a larger context a successful republic is where a people are themselves responsible for others in the society. Here a citizen's behaviour is to create a society which leads to betterment of others and him in every possible way.

What is a Republic? A republic is defined as: A state where supreme political power vests with people and people are governed by elected or nominated representatives. Republic derives from the Latin phrase 'Res publica', which means 'A public product'; hence anything that we do should reflect that basic premise.

The earliest republics come from Greece and in northern India some Buddhist Lachchavi kingdoms which worked on Sanghas and Ganas. Probably they were influenced by the earlier Greek models. Greek model collapsed under its own pressure and Alexander turned it into his empire. The irony is that Aristotle who was his teacher actually wanted an oligarchy based republic. Later more successfully this idea was taken by Romans. Roman city state were the first true example of a republic until again the corruption and nepotism brought it down. Julius Ceaser was primarily responsible for it. Augustus Ceaser created an empire which we admire and loathe equally. For next millennia and half there were monarchies, anarchies and all other forms but the Republics didn't exist.

Then it was time for the two great Republics. Though, it was in England where it spawned from Italian Machiavelli's idea of collective exercise. John Locke in 17^th century vehemently argued that the power should lie with people. English parliament became the first bastion of Republicanisms. However, it was in the US and France where it took roots. The success of the US and France has shown way to almost all the republics that stand today and India is no exception. In the late 19^th century, Marxism and eventually Communism changed the idea of Republics, though now we know that they were far removed from actual Republics. What is an amazing achievement on India's part is that we were as divided as a broken windshield when we got independence and we were able to turn it into a concept of Republic.

Suddenly like Archimedes 'Eureka', it struck me, how many of these Delhites do actually belong to Delhi itself? Most of us who live in these big cities come from small towns. For example I come from a town which is so small that it is miniscule in Indian terms. I can not only walk through my town without breaking into sweat but actually run through it. I started to wonder is it 'amoral familism' which affects us when we migrate to metropolitans. What is 'Amoral Familism'?

Amoral Familism was a term coined by an Italian named, 'Edward Banfield'. In Banfield's work which was done in poverty ridden villages of southern Italy, he summarises that in these societies there is a persistent action to promote the immediate family. He goes on to blame the backwardness to villager's inability to work for common good.

Now neither am I a social scientist nor do I have expertise in it but when I think in India we have a different kind of 'amoral familism'. Here even in the presence of very strong extended family system (unlike the lack of it in Banfield's study) we still are very hidebound, very selfish when it comes to our family. Then we sometimes take this family concept to different circles, sometimes caste or clan based, sometimes to religion or economic levels.

The basic premise of amoral familism is that when rural societies turn into urban one but we still have a psyche of village life. We in India live in concentric circles. Our first responsibility comes for our immediate family, then our extended one, after that our neighbourhood, then comes our ethnic or religious group and beyond. The country or people we do not identify with come last. However, one surprising thing is that our cities show this far more than our villages.

Amoral familism could easily be attributed to why most Indians keep their homes clean but defecate on the road. Why a street corner turns into a garbage dump but people's bedroom is absolutely spic and span. It could also be explained to rash driving where people have very less regard for people they don't know. However this is very dangerous but maybe essential for society's transformation.

But what changes, what changed in America and France initially and then whole of Europe. What changed poor, uneducated, rural, agricultural, authoritarian societies into urban, industrialised democracies. Is democracy the key word here? Governments and people worked hand in hand to create societies. Government worked to remove social classes, disbanded large estates. They got in civil rights and laws which encompassed large masses of people and included the ones on the fringe of the society into the main fold of things. Private enterprises created wealth with the help of government.

Another important fact is the concept of larger society or humanity. Though Indians were far more welcoming to strangers and far more adapting and considerate of so called 'others' but I feel that this urbanization and right wing movements have made us more obstinate. We want to live with Nehru's idea of 'still larger cause of humanity...' & inclusiveness, this still has to be understood by urban Indians.

At least we are moving in the right direction, Right to Education is now a fundamental right instead of just being a directive. It took us 100 years to get there; Gopal Krishna Gokhle had first asked this as the right for Indian children from the Imperial Assembly. There is no other way but education to make society more egalitarian and more altruistic. So a good beginning but societal changes take a long long time to take roots. I hope that India draws from its benevolent villages of the past.