A nation state is a poor notion of the complexities of a nation. Just ask yourself a simple question. Why should the diaspora which has virtually seceded be given dual citizenship while a nomad or a pastoral group be arrested for crossing a boundary line? What is so sacrosanct about a boundary that we have to censor any picture that distorts it? A lot of what we call border violation is merely an expression of old ways of life, old memories questioning the illiteracy of boundary, a memory-less empty line that destroys ways of life that are struggling to survive. What is it about identity that needs fixity?

Modify the problem a bit. Why should we have an ICSSR in Delhi? In fact, why an Indian Council? Why not let different regions invent their own social science? Why bureaucratise it? ICSSRs don’t create social science any more than Knowledge Commission creates knowledge. Knowledge commissions only talk about science as certified statist knowledge.

What if we had a series of ‘local’ reports on tribal, craft knowledge, women’s knowledge, marginal ideas of coping, reports on how slums and neighbourhood create science and use it? We might arrive at more enlightened notions of waste or sensitive models of medical knowledge. A nation is a collection of absences. Secession is a reminder of the presences the nation treats as noise or silence. An aggregation of such reports would have at least given us a better idea of innovation that we currently have.

It is paradoxical that we talk of decentralising the organisation and not the nation. A few minor flexibilities, a few acts of delegation become canonised as decentralisation. We need to invent alternative possibilities, temporary acts of secession which tell the Centre it actually does not hold.

... contd.