Crimea: The importance of a gift Link - http://www.themalaymailonline.com/opinion/gauravdaga/article/crimea-the-importance-of-a-gift By Gaurav Daga gauravdaga@ymail.

.com MARCH 24 At its principle level, it is quoted that: A man ought to be a friend to his friend and repay gift with gift. That is, people meet smiles with smiles and lies with treachery. Nikita Khrushchev, a liberal man after Stalin, gifted the Crimean region to Ukraine SSR to mark the 300-year anniversary of its merger with Soviet Russia. The act of gifting as explained by Marcel Mauss in his book The Gift is that there is no free gift. He states that there are motives behind every gift and the beneficiary is meant to be reciprocator. The obligations to give and receive are both equally important. A person is obliged to offer and to accept because it serves as a constant exchange of comradeship. To refuse a gift or even to refuse to give would mean to reject the union between two parties. However, such was not the case between Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic and Soviet Russia in 1954. The acceptance of the Crimean region by Ukrainian comrades proved that Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic and Soviet Russia are a family of nations. That is, to accept something from somebody is to accept some part of his spiritual essence, of his soul. In other words, the gift also made sure tha t the ideology of Marxism-Leninism was legitimised in its totality. Moreover, when Khrushchev was a teen, he worked in the Ukrainian mines, joined the Party and later married a Ukrainian woman. Hence, the gift given by Khrushchev was both personal and political. In 1954, he did not realise that the gift itself had its own powers. For instance, when a gift is retained, it is both dangerous and mortal. Not only because it would be against law and morality, but also because that gift coming from someone not only morally, but also physically and spiritually, has an essence. Its language, culture, goods whether movable or immovable, folks, descendants, rituals or any acts of communion all exert a magical or spiritual hold over the giver. Thus, the gift carries the baggage of risk either privately or publicly. However, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, both Soviet Russia and Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic collapsed. Recently, Vladimir Putin the President of the Russian Federation declared the gift as unconstitutional. He rightly highlighted the very fact of the essence the gift carries. That is, even when the giver has forgotten it, it still possesses something of him (Russia).

The gift, which was culturally meaningless to Khrushchev, today acquires great historical importance. Its significance can be understood through the recent referendum, where 96 per cent of the Crimean population voted for unity with Russia. The recommended change in clock time, acceptance of rubles, acknowledgment of Putins speech and emotions of fellow Crimeans indicate the ceremonial arrival of the gift to the world. Even if the US and other Western nations refuse to recognise the referendum and consider it as illegal or nothing more than a land grab they fail to understand that the institution of the gift is mythical, historical and magical. The West fails to acknowledge that certain individuals even take their title from them. One cannot deny the sacredness and eminent nature. The gift has its economic, religious, aesthetic and even morphological values. Even if the West views the gift as an interest of geopolitical reasons and mandates it to be given back, one has to understand that the gift given to Ukraine in 1954, had its pledge and little value. However, today when the gift demands it to be recognised, it breaks away with the value of a gift. It demands a new kind of ethics and mortality. It demands its recognition in its entirety. The gift necessitates the status of the autonomous which stirs its own values, pride and sense of freedom even after reunification. Hence, geopolitically the gift now entails a power, which enforces the receiver to appreciate its value and utility. Therefore, the game of gifting and receiving is different. A game can be bounded, specific to the problem where else the gift can be cosmic and open-ended. The game can be predictable, while the gift may not. One needs to be open with the kind of gift he/she may receive. For the kind of novelty and surprises it can offer.