The question of identities has plagued many individuals in the past and will continue to do so in the future. It is particularly encountered by people living in diverse multicultural societies. As a result of the numerous affiliations and backgrounds to which we ascribe or come from, we are often brought face to face with the question, either arising out of our own subconscious or due to the questions of others we interact with, of the importance of one part of identity over another. Is our motherland more important than our religious identity, or does provincial integrity hold sway over the bonds of mother tongue? Similar questions keep arising in the minds of individuals depending on their culture and geography. More often than not, these questions are not easy to answer, resulting in a clash of sensibilities within the person. If someone else chooses to ask this question of someone, it is invariably putting the second person into a situation where he has to compromise between his ideals and practicality. More often than not, the hidden sadist in a person raises his or her head and puts others in such a position by asking a simple question: Are you an X first or a Y first? If you happen to be either the questioner or the answerer, you know what X and Y are or can be. You must also be aware of how tough it becomes to answer such a question as the reception of the response is invariably clouded with prejudice and dependent on the perspective of the questioner. Therefore, more often than not, such questions are always not liked by people who are asked these questions.

I said often, not always. Some people have well-conceived ideas of identity and often know which identity of theirs is more integral to their being and more important to their existence. These people are often single-minded and well focussed. Their observation is often keen and their attention is devoted to certain ideals that shape their ideology. These people have no difficulty whatsoever in answering the question of identities, which I have earlier called tough and troublesome to answer, as they generally have already prepared an answer in their minds and repeatedly gone through the process again and again. I presume such people are good thinkers or at least engage in the activity of thinking. Thinking is a very profitable hobby if backed by research and genuine intent. Without these, it is at best a waste of time and at worst a recipe for disaster. If a person thinks about things without investing enough time in learning about it, learning more than the basics and acquainting himself or herself with various diverse views about the topic, it becomes a futile exercise as his views can easily be mocked at in circles more erudite. Moreover, if the point of thinking is to justify one’s pre-conceived notions instead of trying to develop a genuine view of it, one can win debates but not respect and acceptance. So the person who thinks genuinely and seeks an answer to their question of identity often succeeds in satisfying themselves and on occasions their questioners.

Some people, on the other hand, either just accept what is fashionable to accept, or worse, flip their positions as situations demand. The first case is when the peer group of a person or the general trend of a time readily puts one aspect of identity over another and it is in vogue to say that one is an X before a Y. This approach is, in my opinion, not good. It allows one steady acceptance in the cool clubs of one’s society and acknowledgement from peers and immediate accomplices, but it will leave a vacuum inside the person without one’s realisation. A person who merely gets influenced by others might someday be put in a very difficult position because his actual thoughts had been compromised with. When such a situation arises, it becomes all the more difficult to retrace steps. The second approach that I mention is more dangerous according to me. A person becomes flippant in his opinions in front of others when he or she is pretty sure his or her opinions will offend the person he or she is addressing his views to. It is also possible that the other person might be prejudiced in his or her views as a result of which the first person tries to be diplomatic or flippant. It demonstrates an attitude of please – all; an attitude where one tries to please everyone. It is to an extent due to the fact that we have some part of us craving for the attention of and appreciation from others. A part of us has its locus standi exterior to ourselves. The desire not to offend all and sundry leaves one with no conviction whatsoever to defend one’s views even if he or she believes strongly in it.

It is also improper of people to ask others what section of their identity is more important to them. I have already pointed out a few reasons why I consider this habit bad and erroneous. I will again say that such questions are invariably born out of the desire to put others into discomfort and dilemma. People who happen to interact regularly often pick up traits of each other’s characters. This is true for even people who don’t happen to have a close acquaintance with us but get to spend some time with us regularly. We often realise on our own what a person’s preferences might be. More often than not, it is extremely apparent as a person will without his own intentions make it fairly obvious where his or her priorities lie. Anyone staying with the subject can easily tell from his behavioural responses and reactions what his preferences are. The problem arises when something or the other about the person’s viewpoint won’t match ours. In such cases, we often seek opportunities to question the person directly or indirectly about his views on a topic. The height is reached when the question is put forward in a large group of peers, subordinates or superiors. The questioner already knows the true response to the question but, possibly due to a grouse, still asks the question of identities in an innocent manner accompanied with a cherubic smile only with the intention of putting the addressee of the question into a moral dilemma in front of a group who will in all its probability be having opinions different to that of the person being questioned. Most of us feel delighted when we are able to cause some troubles to others that cannot be pointed out or easily understood. These people are not an exclusive breed but live within each of us. Most of us would buy tickets rather than risk ticketless travelling even when it is beyond doubt that we won’t be caught. This is to an extent due to our sense of perceived morality and also partially due to the fact that we are pretty sure that getting apprehended would result in humiliation and ridicule. The same clause does not apply to a person who can put others into trouble without being presumably responsible for it. Hence people do take pleasure from teasing others and don’t think much about it. A perfunctory observation would lead us to realise that the prevalent educational evils of bullying and ragging are a result of this mentality and attitude.

I won’t tell you if I have ever been asked the question of identities by anyone and what my reaction was. The point of taking it personally ruins the purpose of writing the article. The very facts that I have so far elucidated have been written with the sole purpose of showing a potential questioner the futility and destructibility of the exercise. I personally believe that such questions shouldn’t be asked unless done with the sole intention of research and analysis, and should always be done in private maintaining the implicit clause of confidentiality. Moreover, I feel the question of identities in itself flawed, not just in its application but in its nature too. It is one thing to ask a correct question that might cause damage and bring negative results. It is like an attack on someone to destroy his or her peace or reputation and gaining pleasure out of such an immoral and base act. However, this would in no way render the question moot, just like cracking jokes doesn’t answer the real question even though it is funny and might be appreciated by the audience. The question will be correct and true, but the intention behind its application will make it condemnable. The question of identities, on the other hand, is not a valid and legal question in itself. It is a question that is not correct syntactically and logically, something akin to asking the number of sides in a circle. In the next few paragraphs, I will try to understand why.

A mandatory disclaimer here; the following views are strictly mine and born out of my own experience. Please understand that I have not made a case study before commenting on the subject. There might be a few incidents that will render the points I present moot. I would be very much happy if I am shown any such situations as it would help me broaden my experience.

In my, and strictly my, opinion, any question that tries to contrast and compare two distinct identities of the same person is a logically null and void question that is incorrect in its application. Two different identities of a person never clash against each other. One can have two friends who are no longer on speaking terms and he or she might be forced to choose between the two. Similarly, one can harbour more love and respect towards one parent than the other, but two identities of a person occupy their own separate space distinct from each other. Our identities have their own planes of existence and don’t cross paths. Their holistic summation leads to the complete formation of an individual; that is us. It is the very fact that our identities do not interfere with each other that make them coexist in the tiny spaces inside our heads that they reside in. Our identities are not the domain of somebody else’s concern. They are primary and solely our private property even though we happen to mutually share them with a host of other people. That we don’t constantly feel them clashing inside us is an argument in the favour of the fact that our identities are a part of us and us alone and hence should not bother others, and hence our preferences, however, obscure should only be our private matter. Moreover, their existences are mutually exclusive and situations, where one has to choose one over the other, are actually figments of people’s imagination. The situations that we are presented with where they seem to apparently clash are because of perceived notions that are not founded on rationality and logic but rather on misjudgement and haste.

Let me present this with an example to make it clearer. The rest is going to borrow some boring mathematical terminology so please bear with me. Let there be a person X who lives in a country A and follows a religion R. His religion is a minority in A, the majority being another religion S. Now assume there is another country B, where R is the majority religion and it is constantly on bad terms with A. There are many such places on the globe where this situation is true. Now imagine B waging a war on A. B will be assumed to represent the person X’s religion R and people will ask him to take sides of either his religion or his country. This will be true for many people with similar backgrounds, and they will think it to be a valid question. However, a country has attacked another country; a religion hasn’t attacked another religion. Hence, the person doesn’t have to choose between them. It is only the perception that the foreign country represents his religion that makes it appear so. Similarly, if the followers of S in his country start tormenting and rioting against followers of R and the foreign country B protests against it, he shouldn’t be blamed for taking B’s side, for siding with B is not the same as going against A in this case. It is taking the side of R and not S against perceived perjury and injustice at the hands of S. Both his identities never clash against each other. Never.

I know the last paragraph might have been confusing, but the reason behind making it all algebraic and leaving the readers befuddled is that it would be inappropriate to take names and therefore make it seem a little exclusive. It could also be misconstrued as an artifice to justify the viewpoint of some people under the garb of writing a general article. This has never been my intention. I don’t mean to say that I am against or above justifying any point of view, mine or someone else’s. However, this is not what I intend to do here and hence this disclaimer. On a lighter note, I would like to tell you that my field of study has involved a fair bit of Mathematics and hence I am not above quoting a few differential equations to sound scholarly and vain at the same time.

Coming back to the question of identities, the first bone of contention that I picked with the eponymous subject was that both aspects of the question are never contradictory or contrarian. I know algebra ruined my chances of convincing the readers completely, but I would like to call upon the reader to choose real-life situations and examples, and then try to analyse for themselves the veracity of my assertion. Another fallacy that I have noticed with this question is that the two identities that are pitted against each other are presented in a manner where one is seen as a subset of a large identity and hence it is assumed that one should always favour the greater superior identity over the lesser subordinate one. It goes without saying that the purpose of human existence and civilisation is to ensure mutual cooperation and community. However, sectarian divisional identities always don’t override the larger integrity. It is not true that by being a part of a smaller section, one ceases to be a part of the larger whole. It is not as if his sincerity in the larger holistic cause should be questioned if he or she subscribes to smaller causes at the same time.

A popular example can be found in religion and country. Almost all countries comprise of smaller states, not always on good terms. Similarly, all religions enjoying significant support today have sects based on ideology and belief within them. So, loving one’s state or province doesn’t mean one hates his country. A person trying to further the cause of his state is not necessarily doing so at the expense of his country. Of course, there are many examples present today, especially in the part of the world that I come from, where local satraps try to push their provinces forward while causing troubles to the rest of the country or people from other parts of the same country. I categorically deny and condemn such acts and hope for such people to resort to peaceful and logical means for the betterment of their regions. Similarly, belonging to one sect within one religion does in no way imply that the person compromises superior unity in any way. Please remember that a person belongs to his country or religion or any such other identity, but the subset of his existence is also important to him and he is not an X first or a Y first. He is both of them at the same time.

Therefore, I think one needs to stop asking oneself or others to be something first and then something. It is possible, and in fact more probable, that the said person is both the “something”-s at the same time and he or she is happily so. Neither do his interests conflict nor do they supersede each other. A man is a sum of all the parts present inside him. Holistic, but a sum.