Indian Nationalism Anirban Ganguly anirbangan@gmail.com
Sri Aurobindo Institute of Culture, Kolkata
The country has experimented with ‘Secular nationalism’, ‘Hindu nationalism’, and ‘Cultural nationalism’ and as is evident has not gone very far in terms of cohesion, harmony, unity and strength. It is time it began its experiment with ‘Indian nationalism’ if it is to seek a genuine and lasting solution to most of the major problems plaguing its body politic and preventing it from assuming a high seat in the comity of nations. Too long have we acceded to our narrow and parochial tendencies, it is time, and the situation and circumstances compel, that we recognize the fact that is only an all-encompassing nationalism, inspired by a great spiritual idealism that can unify the country and eradicate internal simmering and fortify it against external dangers which today also operate internally.
Whenever a radical step, a radical movement or a radical change is to be initiated we turn to Sri Aurobindo for the guiding light and the chartered path. On 6th November 1909, when he was in the midst of physically guiding and shaping the destiny of this nation he wrote an article in the Karmayogin clearly and robustly enunciating the ideals of ‘Indian Nationalism. Various groups, who are today engaged in shaping the destiny of this nation, overlook this call of his because it does not suit their respective positions. As always with Sri Aurobindo he does not take extreme stands but puts forth a synthesized truth programme which for the human mind, in its imperfect compartmental state, is too deep or to bold to be grasped. And again as with most of Sri Aurobindo’s programmes, the implementation of this demand too requires a great all pervading effort, determination and perseverance and the human mind usually looks always for quick fix solutions and systems and any sustained effort is usually anathema to it. As for those groups engaged to ‘look after’ the nation, who only live from day to day or from election to election, this demand doesn’t suit their vote-banks and thus remains relegated. Let us read in his own words the demand and the programme, elucidated nearly a hundred years ago but ever so pressing and relevant for the present national condition:
“…Lala Lajpat Rai struck a higher note, that of Hindu nationalism as a necessary preliminary to a greater Indian nationality. We distrust this ideal. Not that we are blind to facts, - not that we do not recognize Hindu-Mahomedan rivalry as a legacy of the past enhanced and not diminished by British ascendancy, a thing that has to be faced and worked out either by mutual concession or by a struggle between nationalism and separatism. But we do not understand Hindu nationalism as a possibility under modern conditions. Hindu nationalism had a meaning in the times of Shivaji and Ramdas, when the object of national revival was to overthrow a Mahomedan domination which, once tending to Indian unity and toleration, had become oppressive and disruptive. It was possible because India was then a world to itself and the existence of two geographical units entirely Hindu, Maharashtra and Rajputana, provided it with a basis. It was necessary because the misuse of their domination by the Mahomedan element was fatal to India’s future and had to be punished and corrected by the resurgence and domination of the Hindu. And because it was possible and necessary, it came into being. But under modern conditions India can only exist as a whole…”
The inability to see and stand for this truth accentuated the communal differences during most of the major periods of our struggle for freedom. The concept of ‘India as a whole’ was never really given a chance nor defended when the need arose. Because of a myopic vision and extreme lack of political will and farsightedness nationalism lost its struggle with separatism.
The cry of ‘Indian nationalism’ can be today the best anti-dote for the two-nation theory, it can negate it and compel it to an early demise. But what can be the contours of this nationalism, how can it begin to be born and function, Sri Aurobindo continues:
“…the country, the swadesh, which must be the base and fundament of our nationality, is India, a country where Mahomedan and Hindu live intermingled and side by side. What geographical base can a Hindu nationality possess? Maharashtra and Rajasthan are no longer separate geographical units but merely provincial divisions of a single country. The very first requisite of Hindu nationalism is wanting. The Mahomedans base their separateness and their refusal to regard themselves as Indians first and Mahomedans afterwards on the existence of great Mahomedan nations to which they feel themselves more akin, in spite of our common birth and blood, than to us. Hindus have no such resource. For good or evil, they are bound to the soil and to the soil alone. They cannot deny their Mother, neither can they mutilate her. Our ideal therefore is an Indian Nationalism, largely Hindu in its spirit and traditions, because the Hindu made the land and the people and persists, by the greatness of his past, his civilisation and his culture and his invincible virility, in holding it, but wide enough also to include the Moslem and his culture and traditions and absorb them into itself. It is possible that the Mahomedan may not recognize the inevitable future and may prefer to throw himself into the opposite scale. If so, the Hindu, with what little Mahomedan help he may get, must win Swaraj both for himself and the Mahomedan in spite of that resistance. There is a sufficient force and manhood in us to do a greater and more difficult task than that, but we lack unity, brotherhood, intensity of single action among ourselves…”
The ideal has been clearly demarcated but it is bound to be unpalatable to the present political players who themselves are groping in darkness engendered by the divisions of wafer-thin chameleon ideologies and egoisms. The left and the left of centre will deny the ‘largely Hindu’ aspect, for them it is something that does not really exist or is not needed for national advancement and strength. It is this attitude which has mostly confined or limited their roles in national progress. For the right the negation of ‘Hindu nationalism’ would be hard to digest and moreover they clamour for a nationalism that is wholly and not ‘largely’ Hindu. It is this isolated stand that is preventing them from formulating an effective national strategy of growth and consolidation. An ‘Indian Nationalism’ which is largely Hindu would automatically safeguard Hindu interests without being exclusive, narrow and hegemonistic and would also have the strength to bring about unity and a ‘cohesive will’. Muslims would be bitten to the quick by the allusion of their feeling more akin to the ‘great Mahomedan nations’, an observation largely relevant even today. A complete and thorough change in this outlook of the Muslim is a necessity and ‘Indian Nationalism’ as defined has the requisite strength to eradicate that feeling in an attitude of compassion and understanding and of firmness minus coercion. The ‘largely Hindu’ aspect of Indian Nationalism has to be accepted by the Muslim with a certain large heartedness and pragmatic attitude. ‘Indian Nationalism’ in reality has the appeal for the ‘nationalist Muslim’ who is concerned and strives rightly for the development of not only his community but for the nation in general and who refuses to let himself and his people be used as pawns and baits in the great game of political permutation, consolidation and power. As to the ‘lack of unity, brotherhood, intensity of single action – it is intact even today and remains at the root of all divisive ills, ‘Indian Nationalism’ shall have the will to override all these differences. Thus the formulation is frank, clear hearted and bold and the demands rather hard. An adherence to this programme in the early days would have most certainly prevented vivisection; an implementation of it today would definitely arrest further balkanization and division.
Sri Aurobindo has often been maliciously and ignorantly portrayed as the champion and originator of a Hindu revivalist right-wing movement in the country, his clarion call of ‘Indian Nationalism’ above clearly blows the top of such allegations. Sri Aurobindo remains the champion of his own vision which sees always the many sided truth and takes a stand based on synthesis and harmony, the exact opposite of the usual way of stand formulation followed today in general and in political action in particular. The sooner the country and its leaders begin to see it and appreciate it the better it shall be for them and the nation. But may be it is too much too expect from them.
The present system/method of governance and vision of India, largely a legacy of our colonial past, has lived for too long, its roots are deep and trunk too thick and branches too numerous and strong, it will perpetuate itself for some more time to come and it may sound vain even to contemplate a change, but for those of us who have before us Sri Aurobindo’s vision of the country it is never too early to rise and start.
Whenever a radical step, a radical movement or a radical change is to be initiated we turn to Sri Aurobindo for the guiding light and the chartered path. On 6th November 1909, when he was in the midst of physically guiding and shaping the destiny of this nation he wrote an article in the Karmayogin clearly and robustly enunciating the ideals of ‘Indian Nationalism. Various groups, who are today engaged in shaping the destiny of this nation, overlook this call of his because it does not suit their respective positions. As always with Sri Aurobindo he does not take extreme stands but puts forth a synthesized truth programme which for the human mind, in its imperfect compartmental state, is too deep or to bold to be grasped. And again as with most of Sri Aurobindo’s programmes, the implementation of this demand too requires a great all pervading effort, determination and perseverance and the human mind usually looks always for quick fix solutions and systems and any sustained effort is usually anathema to it. As for those groups engaged to ‘look after’ the nation, who only live from day to day or from election to election, this demand doesn’t suit their vote-banks and thus remains relegated. Let us read in his own words the demand and the programme, elucidated nearly a hundred years ago but ever so pressing and relevant for the present national condition:
“…Lala Lajpat Rai struck a higher note, that of Hindu nationalism as a necessary preliminary to a greater Indian nationality. We distrust this ideal. Not that we are blind to facts, - not that we do not recognize Hindu-Mahomedan rivalry as a legacy of the past enhanced and not diminished by British ascendancy, a thing that has to be faced and worked out either by mutual concession or by a struggle between nationalism and separatism. But we do not understand Hindu nationalism as a possibility under modern conditions. Hindu nationalism had a meaning in the times of Shivaji and Ramdas, when the object of national revival was to overthrow a Mahomedan domination which, once tending to Indian unity and toleration, had become oppressive and disruptive. It was possible because India was then a world to itself and the existence of two geographical units entirely Hindu, Maharashtra and Rajputana, provided it with a basis. It was necessary because the misuse of their domination by the Mahomedan element was fatal to India’s future and had to be punished and corrected by the resurgence and domination of the Hindu. And because it was possible and necessary, it came into being. But under modern conditions India can only exist as a whole…”
The inability to see and stand for this truth accentuated the communal differences during most of the major periods of our struggle for freedom. The concept of ‘India as a whole’ was never really given a chance nor defended when the need arose. Because of a myopic vision and extreme lack of political will and farsightedness nationalism lost its struggle with separatism.
The cry of ‘Indian nationalism’ can be today the best anti-dote for the two-nation theory, it can negate it and compel it to an early demise. But what can be the contours of this nationalism, how can it begin to be born and function, Sri Aurobindo continues:
“…the country, the swadesh, which must be the base and fundament of our nationality, is India, a country where Mahomedan and Hindu live intermingled and side by side. What geographical base can a Hindu nationality possess? Maharashtra and Rajasthan are no longer separate geographical units but merely provincial divisions of a single country. The very first requisite of Hindu nationalism is wanting. The Mahomedans base their separateness and their refusal to regard themselves as Indians first and Mahomedans afterwards on the existence of great Mahomedan nations to which they feel themselves more akin, in spite of our common birth and blood, than to us. Hindus have no such resource. For good or evil, they are bound to the soil and to the soil alone. They cannot deny their Mother, neither can they mutilate her. Our ideal therefore is an Indian Nationalism, largely Hindu in its spirit and traditions, because the Hindu made the land and the people and persists, by the greatness of his past, his civilisation and his culture and his invincible virility, in holding it, but wide enough also to include the Moslem and his culture and traditions and absorb them into itself. It is possible that the Mahomedan may not recognize the inevitable future and may prefer to throw himself into the opposite scale. If so, the Hindu, with what little Mahomedan help he may get, must win Swaraj both for himself and the Mahomedan in spite of that resistance. There is a sufficient force and manhood in us to do a greater and more difficult task than that, but we lack unity, brotherhood, intensity of single action among ourselves…”
The ideal has been clearly demarcated but it is bound to be unpalatable to the present political players who themselves are groping in darkness engendered by the divisions of wafer-thin chameleon ideologies and egoisms. The left and the left of centre will deny the ‘largely Hindu’ aspect, for them it is something that does not really exist or is not needed for national advancement and strength. It is this attitude which has mostly confined or limited their roles in national progress. For the right the negation of ‘Hindu nationalism’ would be hard to digest and moreover they clamour for a nationalism that is wholly and not ‘largely’ Hindu. It is this isolated stand that is preventing them from formulating an effective national strategy of growth and consolidation. An ‘Indian Nationalism’ which is largely Hindu would automatically safeguard Hindu interests without being exclusive, narrow and hegemonistic and would also have the strength to bring about unity and a ‘cohesive will’. Muslims would be bitten to the quick by the allusion of their feeling more akin to the ‘great Mahomedan nations’, an observation largely relevant even today. A complete and thorough change in this outlook of the Muslim is a necessity and ‘Indian Nationalism’ as defined has the requisite strength to eradicate that feeling in an attitude of compassion and understanding and of firmness minus coercion. The ‘largely Hindu’ aspect of Indian Nationalism has to be accepted by the Muslim with a certain large heartedness and pragmatic attitude. ‘Indian Nationalism’ in reality has the appeal for the ‘nationalist Muslim’ who is concerned and strives rightly for the development of not only his community but for the nation in general and who refuses to let himself and his people be used as pawns and baits in the great game of political permutation, consolidation and power. As to the ‘lack of unity, brotherhood, intensity of single action – it is intact even today and remains at the root of all divisive ills, ‘Indian Nationalism’ shall have the will to override all these differences. Thus the formulation is frank, clear hearted and bold and the demands rather hard. An adherence to this programme in the early days would have most certainly prevented vivisection; an implementation of it today would definitely arrest further balkanization and division.
Sri Aurobindo has often been maliciously and ignorantly portrayed as the champion and originator of a Hindu revivalist right-wing movement in the country, his clarion call of ‘Indian Nationalism’ above clearly blows the top of such allegations. Sri Aurobindo remains the champion of his own vision which sees always the many sided truth and takes a stand based on synthesis and harmony, the exact opposite of the usual way of stand formulation followed today in general and in political action in particular. The sooner the country and its leaders begin to see it and appreciate it the better it shall be for them and the nation. But may be it is too much too expect from them.
The present system/method of governance and vision of India, largely a legacy of our colonial past, has lived for too long, its roots are deep and trunk too thick and branches too numerous and strong, it will perpetuate itself for some more time to come and it may sound vain even to contemplate a change, but for those of us who have before us Sri Aurobindo’s vision of the country it is never too early to rise and start.
- Can the first call then that can begin to move and bind us for the nation’s resurgence, unity and strength be Sri Aurobindo’s call of ‘Indian Nationalism’?
- Can we start spreading and uniting with that call on our lips to bring about a resurgent India?
From: aju mukhopadhyay ajum24@yahoo.co.in
ReplyDeleteDate: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 08:04:01 +0100 (BST)
Dear Tushar M,
Just read something from it- good- this is our, Aurobindonians idea and ideals- but it has spread in many different alleys- secularism, vote craving, idea of becoming liberal with religions- criticising our own religion but very liberal about the others so to prove borad based broad hearted intellectuals, like the left policy- actually misguided dungeons- let me not go any more- i write where ever i go and do- casteism is one of such lanes- misguiding the nation and the youth, bringing more and more divisions in the body of India-
Good wishes, Aju M
From: "RABI KANUNGO" rabikanungo@rediffmail.com
Date: 22 Apr 2007 02:37:09 -0000
>>From: Rabi Kanungo (Intellectual Forum), 22.4.07 - 7 a.m.
I have read this posting with avowed interest. If one could trace the time line of secular-confusion, it was during the Emergency era – the blackest spot of the then India’s young democracy. Like all non-monarchial despots world over, Smt Indira Gandhi attempted to camouflage the decoration of Indian Constitution by inserting two hitherto non-experimented words – Socialist and Secular – in the Preamble in the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution. Let us mark Indian political hypocrisy at that time. When most provisions of amendment were annulled by the subsequent Janata Dal government, the above two were left untouched. Constitution makers had perhaps the wisdom as not to incorporate those things though the need was urgent. Because immediately before it, the country suffered a Partition and with Independence, India was positioned to be a pluralistic country. The purpose of the Constituent Assembly was that people must grow by themselves as Indian with odds and ambitions together. Making of a country by its people and making the same by fiats of Parliament are like a difference between heaven and hell. This opportunity was obliterated by political hypocrisy. Thereafter without any sense of shame India got ‘constitutionally’ secular and democratic political parties. Caste, Religion, Regionalism and whatnot could be used as implements to secure vote by parties without loss of face value.
Struggle between facts and a reason are existent in every society. 'Facts' are visible, where as ‘reasons’ need various assortments of deduction, even at the risk of encountering uncertain convictions. Fact is swift, suave and can be explained in cryptic language. Man needs no great skill to be the carrier or the receiver of a fact.
The word ‘democracy’ should always mean to be the peoples’ rule. We find a lot of caricatures in the present world. Dictators and autocrats seize power and still are successful to propagate of themselves as champions of democracy! That is a different aspect. Other than requiring freedom of speech and equal access to ballot, subject to stipulations of respective laws, the notion of democracy sets no limits on what the people may do in their sovereign capacity. No ruler has the right to ask a citizen as to why he is ‘thinking’ or ‘doing’ any better thing for his state. This is not possible in autocratic states. For doing so, he needs the ruler’s permit.
Our Constitutional tradition is not very old. It hardly aims at achieving ‘pure democracy’; rather the aim of it is ‘pure quest’ for better living of heterogeneous groupings.
The remarkable flexibility of Indian mind has expressed itself in variety of ways in which it attempted to treat the new dimensions of philosophical activity. This is what is done by the philosophers of Indian renaissance. In order to fully satisfy all the possible demands of human life, a philosophy must not only provide us with a basic principle which enables us to arrive at a particular conception of the world, but it must also provide us with sciences which are essential for social activity. It is often commented by many that Indian philosophy is pragmatic in the sense that it is not only a way of thought, but a conscious way of life as well. Subjects like ethics do form part of such a conscious life. We cannot avoid thinking about them since life is a whole, a unity, and its various phases cannot be left in isolation.
In Sanatan dharma [vaguely termed as ‘Hindu’] – this cycle is unending and to exist as long as men live on this earth. Scientifically, this idea precludes an assumption that the Hindu ways of thinking are any way static. If Hindus consider something as Avatara it is for them the transformed and saturated crust of knowledge [Jnana] that they might gain out of many experiences of Yugas. Unlike others, Avatara to Hindus is not merely an icon. Giving shape of Avataras in Puranic descriptions is for the mass. A person who may like to ascend his level of understanding can go beyond the Puran and interpret an Avatar in any other logical and conceivable way for which he is not prohibited. But for most religions of the world this is not the same. They cease at a particular point and can never sojourn any where beyond. This classical difference of Hindus with other religions creates a lot of operational difficulties for Hindus, more so when they co-exist with other believers. Deliverance they might achieve from the Puranic descriptions about Avataras is always pushed to doubtful areas. And being away from analytical knowledge, they tend to behave in peculiar ways that may seem like atheist.
“The Avatara, or incarnation of Godhead, descends from the kingdom of God for [creating and maintaining the] material manifestation. And the particular form of the Personality of Godhead who so descends is called an incarnation, or Avatara. Such incarnations are situated in the spiritual world, the kingdom of God. When They descend to the material creation, They assume the name Avatara.” (Chaitanya-caritamrita 2.20.263 - 264). In his ‘Quest of Wholeness’, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan has also opined that “the Hindus would see Jesus as one Avatara – a descend of the Devine in to human…”
As religions are the major force of human drives we may stray in to another area. Is religion compatible with liberal democracy? Has any religion of the world envisaged and worked out of ‘democracy’ or its adjustment with it? This is a moot question. In order to find an answer we must primarily address to two other questions first. One: Are managers of religion capable of recognizing democracy in democratic spirit? Two: Do democratic statesmen realize religion theologically? Mere use of words can not save a democracy. Even we have seen gross perversions. Hitler was ‘elected’ to power in 1933.
In Hindu sets in Independent India, in religion we may find a galaxy of illustrious persons like Sri Aurobindo, Dayananda Saraswati, Shibananda, Chinmayananda, Nigamananda, Anukulchandra etc., but they are more regarded as religious philosophers; never as mendicant priests. Is it not a decent substitute to express rejection? But when religion had the increasing necessity to assimilate more with such mendicant priesthood, the void was filled up by pseudo religious leaders in Hindu grabs. Operating religion perhaps could not rightly hold them on. That means, they were rejected from the operating religion. To address to the other question, we have two ideal examples in Indian politics. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. Their appearance in political cauldrons is a case-study. As do they unbeatably fit to other higher ethical and intellectual standards – experience suggests that politics became unfamiliar territory to them. Such political caginess suggests that the most respected Radhakrishnan or Kalam does not fit to our ever-growing democratic aspirations.
Let us rationally believe that social events do not happen suddenly like an earthquake. Those begin to crop from the seeds sown. I praise your efforts; at least the new generation may get opportunity to understand perspectives of events and social equations.