Nationalism in India: Past and
Present
Gnaneswara
T.N., Assistant Professor of English, GFGC, Jalahalli-584116,
Raichur
Dist., Karnataka, India
Abstract
_____________________________________________________________
Nationalism is a sense of loyalty towards one’s own nation. It creates a sense of psychological bond with the nation. Indian nationalism developed as a concept during the Indian independence movement fought against the colonial British Raj. It was not purely political, but a renaissance movement embracing almost every sphere of Indian life. History and fiction, folklore and songs, popular prints and symbols, all played a part in the making of nationalism. From the uncompromising stand against fascism and Nazism to Khilafat movement, Indian nationalism had internationalized itself. Amidst this, religious nationalists – both Hindus and Muslims propounded the Two Nation theory. It laid the foundation of narrow nationalism in India. Indian nationalism is an instance of territorial nationalism, inclusive of all its people, despite their diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds. Various races, religions and ethnicities had co-existed from the dawn of time in India. Nationalism was a historical need to India. But now it is a means to get power for some political parties. There are lots of misconceptions and propaganda about nationalism. Generally, the idea of nationalism has become negative with irrational blaming and the spread of hatred among the people. But most of the views are being used for political gain through misconception and half-truths. _____________________________________________________________
Key words:
Nationalism, India, Hindutva, propaganda,
hatred, intolerance, violence
Nationalism: meaning
“Nation”, as Benedict Anderson
said, “is an imagined community.” Nationalism is a sense of loyalty towards
one’s own nation. It creates a sense of psychological bond with the nation. Nationalism
spreads when people begin to believe that they are all part of the same nation,
when they discover some unity that binds them together.[1]
Difference
between Patriotism and Nationalism
Patriotism is about protecting
the land we live in. Nationalism is about protecting the way we live. A patriot
is tolerant and tries to learn something new, but a nationalist cannot tolerate
criticism and considers it an insult.[2]
Rise and growth of Nationalism in India
Indian nationalism developed as a
concept during the Indian independence movement fought against the colonial
British Raj. The consolidation of the British East India Company’s rule in the
Indian subcontinent during the 18th century brought about socio-economic
changes which led to the rise of an Indian middle class. A rising political
consciousness among the native Indian social elite spawned an Indian identity
and fed a growing nationalist sentiment in India in the last decades of 19th
century.
It was not purely political, but
a renaissance movement embracing almost every sphere of Indian life. It was a
vast movement of a whole people towards national independence, national
self-respect and national enlightenment. History and fiction, folklore and
songs, popular prints and symbols, all played a part in the making of
nationalism. The image of Bharat Mata was first created by Bankim Chandra
Chattopadhyay in 1870 when he wrote ‘Vande Mataram’ for our motherland. Moved
by the Swadeshi movement, Abanindranath Tagore painted his famous image of
Bharat Mata. Devotion to this mother figure came to be seen as evidence of
one’s nationalism. As the national movement developed, nationalist leaders
became more and more aware of such icons and symbols in unifying people and
inspiring in them a feeling of nationalism. Carrying the flag, holding it
aloft, during marches became a symbol of defiance. In late nineteenth century
nationalists began recording folk tales. It was essential to preserve this folk
tradition in order to discover one’s national identity and restore a sense of
pride in one’s past. Another means of creating a feeling of nationalism was
through interpretation of history. The British saw Indians as backward and
primitive, incapable of governing themselves. In response Indians began looking
into the past to discover India’s great achievements.
Indian National Congress was
founded in 1885. It was the first organized expression of Indian Nationalism on
an all-India scale. The partition of Bengal in 1905 escalated the growing
unrest, stimulating radical nationalist sentiments and becoming a driving force
for Indian revolutionaries.
From the very beginning Indian
nationalism had a deep sense of internationalism. From the uncompromising stand
against fascism and Nazism to Khilafat movement, Indian nationalism had
internationalized itself. Amidst this, religious nationalists – both Hindus and
Muslims propounded the Two Nation theory. It laid the foundation of narrow
nationalism in India.
Savarkar coined the term Hindutva for his ideology that described
India as a Hindu Rashtra, a Hindu
nation. This ideology has become the cornerstone of the political and religious
agendas of modern Hindu nationalist bodies like the Bharatiya Janata Party and
the Vishwa Hindu Parishad.
When the past being glorified was
Hindu, and the images celebrated were drawn from Hindu iconography, then people
of other communities felt left out. In 1906-1907, the All India Muslim League
was founded, created due to the suspicion of Muslim intellectuals and religious
leaders with the Indian National Congress, which was perceived as dominated by
Hindu membership and opinions. While prominent Muslims like Muhammad Ali Jinnah
embraced the notion that Hindus and Muslims were distinct nations, other major
leaders like Maulana Azad strongly backed the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi
opposing any notion of Muslim nationalism and separatism.
Indian nationalism is an instance
of territorial nationalism, inclusive of all its people, despite their diverse
ethnic and religious backgrounds. Various races, religions and ethnicities had
co-existed from the dawn of time in India.
As the Mahatma wrote, “Free India
will not be a Hindu raj; it will be an Indian raj based not on the majority of
any religious sect or community, but on the representatives of the whole people
without distinction of religion…” “Religion,” he believed, “is a personal
matter which should have no place in politics.” The 1911 census of India found
that “a quarter of the persons classed as Hindus deny the supremacy of
Brahmans, a quarter do not worship the great Hindu gods… a half do not regard
cremation as obligatory, and two-fifths eat beef”. i.e., Hindus too could only
be understood in the plural rather than the singular.[3]
Pluralism, for Hindus, is a way of life. And this pluralism stems from a
polytheistic tradition of worshipping innumerable gods. Hinduism allows for
different schools of tradition and philosophies to reside concurrently. Nehru
too articulated nationalism in similar terms where diversity was not an
impediment to love for one’s country.
While the inclusive nationalism
of Gandhi and Nehru came from direct experience of fighting for freedom, from a
personal interaction with the people, Hindutva was constructed by thinkers who
were not active participants in the struggle against imperialism and therefore
could fabricate theories divorced from the lived experience and reality of the
masses. The RSS ideologue M S Golwalkar had in 1939 written that the policy of
Germany’s Nazi government led by Adolf Hitler to purge the Jews was “a good
lesson” for Hindustan “to learn and profit by”.[4]
New Nationalism
Nationalism was a historical need
to India. But now it is a means to get power for some political parties. If we
observe the recent debates on nationalism then the term is being redefined for
achieving political goals. The concept of nationalism is being used for
acquiring votes in the elections. There are lots of misconceptions and
propaganda about nationalism. Generally, the idea of nationalism becomes
negative with irrational blaming and the spread of hatred among the people. Now
in India, the debate of nationalism v/s anti-nationalism is taking new heights.
But most of the views are being used for political gain through misconception
and half-truths. If a person is being critical of the government’s style of
working or they often criticize the policy of the government, they are not
anti-nationalists. Supreme Court Justice Deepak Gupta observes: “Freedom of
expression has no meaning if it does not include the freedom to question and
criticize accepted norms and authority. Citizens should be able to criticize
the government, individuals or institutions like the judiciary and the armed forces,
and such criticism should not be considered a crime and dubbed as anti-national
activity.”[5]
Being critical of issues in the country is a huge indicator of love towards the
nation and its betterment! We must show our love and respect towards the nation
but that does not mean that we should take the law into our hands and become
violent. The nation never wants violence, hate and fear to reflect on its
people. Instead we should stand for national integration.
The BJP seeks to preserve and
spread the culture of the Hindus, the majority population. In Maharashtra, the
Shiv Sena uses the legacy of the independent Maratha kingdom under famous
figure Shivaji to stir up support, and has adopted Hindutva as well. They and
their admirers/voters believe that they are the monopolists of patriotism and
the opposition and the independent press are invariable deemed unpatriotic.
Sangh Parivar is in search of
icons. Faced with a severe shortage of freedom fighters, they think that anyone
who walked on the ‘right’ side of the national movement before independence, or
of the nation-building movement after independence, is intellectually theirs to
appropriate. These national icons, they seem to think, need to be rescued from
the illegal custody of the Congress and restored to the entire nation. Sardar
Patel was a Congressman, but the Sangh Parivar has appropriated him.[6]
PM Modi’s ‘Make in India’ project
to push for indigenous production in technology is a manifestation of
techno-nationalism. The latest test of ASAT (anti-satellite) missile which was
laced with the rhetoric of ‘national pride’ and ‘progress’ is a clear case of
techno-nationalism.
The current U.P. Government has
started replacing Muslim names with Hindu ones. Mughalsarai is now Pandit Deen
Dayal Upadhyaya Junction, Gorakhpur’s Urdu Bazar is Hindi Bazar, Ali Nagar is
Arya Nagar and Allahabad is Prayagraj.
This January, the Hindu Sena, a
far-right Hindu outfit known for its bizarre displays of nationalism,
commemorated the 118th death anniversary of Queen Victoria with the firm belief
that she freed India from Islamic ‘invaders’. The absolute shocker was Hindu
Sena founder and national president Vishnu Gupta’s claim that Queen Victoria
granted us loktantra (democracy)![7]
Vigilantism reached crescendo
when people started to investigate what is cooking in your kitchen and what is
placed in your fridge. Lynching citizens belonging to minority on these trivial
things became a new normal. Quite naturally, minorities are ‘second-class
citizens’ in such a situation. We see more intolerance and more violence. It is
a threat to democracy.
In 2015, 41 novelists, essayists,
playwrights and poets returned awards received from Sahitya Akademi angered
that the academy had remained silent on the murder of rationalists Narendra
Dabholkar, Govind Pansare and M.M. Kalburgi by unidentified assailants. 12
film-makers returned their national awards to protest ‘growing intolerance in
the country’. Recently, acclaimed theatre artiste, poet and playwright S
Raghunandana has refused to accept the Sangeet Natak Akademi award citing the
growing trend of hatred towards activists, intelectuals and attempts to
throttle their righteous struggle to uphold the spirit and values of the
constitution.[8] In 2016, Kanhaiya Kumar
was arrested on sedition charges for making “anti-national remarks.” Shehla
Rashid, a student activist, has been booked for sedition over her tweets
accusing Indian Army officers of torturing civilians in Jammu and Kashmir. Most
recently, tradition charges were lodged against some 49 signatories to a letter
to the prime minister seeking action against mob lynching, although the charges
were dropped later.[9] An archaic law
is used as a tool to suppress dissent.
A Supreme Court bench comprising
Justices D Y Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta said in a judgement in April 2019,
“Contemporary events reveal that there is growing intolerance… Organised groups
and interests pose a serious danger to the existence of the right to free
speech and expression.”[10]
Former Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh speaking at a conference in 2015 said,
“Suppression of free speech poses a grave danger for economic development.”[11]
Former president Pranab Mukherjee appealed to the nation “that the core values
of India’s civilization that celebrate diversity, plurality and tolerance should
not be allowed to wither away”. He remarked that “Many ancient civilizations
have collapsed, but the Indian civilization has survived because of its core
civilization values and adherence to them”.[12]
Conclusion
Nationalism was a historical need
to India. But now it is a means to get power for some political parties. There
are lots of misconceptions and propaganda about nationalism. Generally, the
idea of nationalism has become negative with irrational blaming and the spread
of hatred among the people. Now in India, the debate of nationalism v/s
anti-nationalism is taking new heights. If a person is being critical of the
government’s style of working or they often criticize the policy of the
government, they are not anti-nationalists. We must show our love and respect
towards the nation but that does not mean that we should take the law into our
hands and become violent. Instead we should stand for national integration.
[1]
India and the Contemporary World,
NCERT, p. 70
[2]
Chandra
Mouli, K.V., Letters to the Editor, Deccan Herald, August 16, 2019, p. 10
[3]
Manu
S Pillai, Afterword, The Courtesan, The Mahatma & The Italian Brahmin:
Tales from Indian History
[4]
Deccan
Herald, July 21, 2019, p. II
[5]
Editorial,
Deccan Herald, September 13, 2019, p. 10
[6]
Prasannan
R., ‘Colossal obsessions of an oriental kind’, The Week, November 18, 2018, p.
19
[7]
Reader’s
Digest, May 2019, p. 22
[8]
Deccan
Herald, July 18, 2019, p. 6
[9] Thulasi K Raj, ‘The Sedition Law must go’, Deccan Herald, November 6, 2019, p. 10
[10]
Times
of India, April 11, 2019. Web.
[11]
Deccan
Herald, Nov 6, 2015. Web.
[12]
Narayanan
M.K., ‘The Age of Intolerance’, The Hindu, 28 October 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment