This view of nationalism refers to the greatness of India in another era and, indeed, another territorial boundary. Led by the right-wing political class, it unearths, strengthens and brings back many ancient Indian traditions and practices to contemporary times. While I find nothing wrong with a revivalist approach, its efficacy and legitimacy in a liberal environment depends on how these ancient traditions are presented and offered to ordinary citizens.
For instance, in 2014, the prime minister of India, at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York, proposed the establishment of an International Day of Yoga. Whatever an ‘International Day of Yoga’ meant, the proposal was dealt with in a democratic manner at the UNGA. It was discussed over several rounds of informal consultations convened by an assertive Indian delegation, and in the following year, 2015, the UNGA designated 21 June as the annual International Yoga Day.
Thereafter, in India, citizens woke up to messages sent by the ‘Ministry of AYUSH’, asking them to practise yoga. This new Ministry of AYUSH was created in 2014 by the government that had come to power at the centre that year. It was the same government that had established, via a democratic process, the International Yoga Day at the UNGA. The endeavour of this ministry was to promote Ayurveda, yoga and naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and homoeopathy, for which AYUSH is the acronym. Here is a sample of the messages from the government asking me to practise yoga, which I received on my cellular phone in New Delhi:
18 June 2015, 6.17 a.m.
Practice Yoga: It works on the body, mind, emotions and energy. Live life to its full potential. Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of India.
19 June 2015, 3.04 a.m.
Practice Yoga: It can make you feel active, energetic and positive. Live life to its full potential. Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of India.
20 June 2015, 3.04 a.m.
Rejuvenate with Yoga: It enriches the consciousness and makes one alert, aware and active. Live life to its full potential. Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of India.
21 June 2015, 3.05 a.m.
Rejuvenate with Yoga: It helps to achieve control over the mind and flexibility of the body. Live life to its full potential. Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of India.
Firstly, I considered it a breach of my privacy. I had not provided my private cellular phone number to the government, so how did the government procure it and find it appropriate to send me messages in the wee hours of the morning? Second, signing off as the ‘Government of India’ makes any message seem obligatory. The message did not specify or provide a disclaimer that this was a suggestion, and that I could use my discretion to do or not to do yoga. Third, the entire drive—via phone messages, political speeches, and the prime minister himself performing yoga at a public event—to make yoga compulsory made me uncomfortable. I practise meditation and do various forms of fitness activities every day. However, I am uneasy if yoga or any other form of wellness is foisted upon me, as if it were a badge of my nationalism.
Let us take another example. There has been a recent emphasis by several Indian government officials on the ‘saffronization’ of education.10 This has often meant recalling and glorifying11 ancient Hindu cultural history in the education curriculum of our children, raising a storm of malaise and anxiety among parents who would like their children to get a more contemporary and balanced education.
This anxiety, aggravated by the overall low level of trust in public institutions in India,12 led citizens to suspect the intentions of the government when Sanskrit was introduced in the curriculum at IIT. It was added in April 2016 as an optional subject at the undergraduate level at India’s most elite engineering school, which is also a public institution controlled by the government. Ordinary people wondered if this was part of the greater ‘saffronization agenda’.
The worry of citizens was legitimate on another account: the ancient Indian language of Sanskrit holds the key to two doors placed at two opposite ends. Which of the two doors are opened depends on who holds the key.
One door leads to the vast literature, belonging to the millennia preceding and following Christ, on several technical topics including science, mathematics and political theory, which became the starting point for many advanced theories across various disciplines. It is estimated that even now, about thirty million texts of this rich knowledge are there in Sanskrit, the largest textual corpus of any existing human language.13
The second door leads to a specific section of the social world of Sanskrit that reeks of caste hierarchy, inequality and misogyny.14 In an essay called ‘The story of my Sanskrit’, author Ananya Vajpeyi recounts how several Sanskritists and pandits in India have been left feeling misunderstood and alienated by the modern emphasis on science and technology, and so they resent liberal values.15
If the liberal and secular community—who hold a Nehruvian view of nationalism—holds the key, they would open the first door that contains knowledge about India as her oldest and most authentic self. But if the key falls into the hands of those nursing a grudge, who are now supported by a right-wing political agenda, the effect would be starkly different.
In April 2017, a year after the inclusion of Sanskrit in the IIT curriculum, it was decreed that the ancient Indian science of architecture, vastu shastra, must also be included in the curriculum of IIT’s campus in Kharagpur.16 By teaching ‘ancient Indian architectural traditions’, it was said, the institute would train ‘well-rounded architects’. Vastu shastra was developed between 6000 BC and 3000 BC, and has roots in the Rig Veda. It involves designing buildings keeping in mind the influence of the sun’s light and heat, wind directions, the moon’s position, and Earth’s magnetic fields.
However, there is no agreement among practising architects that vastu shastra is a scientific system, or if it provides an accurate understanding of nature. Some architects have pointed out that, ‘Vastu orders spaces and buildings based on geography in a caste-oriented and patriarchal way.
For example, the spaces it assigns for women and lower castes are towards the unfavourable elements of nature, while plentiful and favourable locations are provided for the “master”.’17 On what basis did the Indian government decide to alter the education curriculum?
In 2016, the Supreme Court of India ordered all cinema halls in the country to mandatorily play India’s national anthem before the screening of any film.18 It also directed the audience to stand in respect so as to ‘instil the feeling within one a sense (of) committed patriotism and nationalism’. The order was to be followed with the utmost seriousness, so much so that the government even issued guidelines for disabled people, saying they must not move and position themselves ‘maintaining the maximum possible alertness physically’ during the time that the national anthem was played.19
Indeed, our fundamental right as Indian citizens to free speech and expression also includes the right not to speak. We cannot be forced to sing the national anthem. Shouldn’t patriotism come naturally to oneself? Can patriotism be invoked by force?
I don’t think so. The order of the Supreme Court might have ensured that cinema audiences in India now stand while the national anthem plays. However, this is motivated by people’s fear of being charged with ‘anti-nationalism’ and the heckling that follows if one does not stand rather than by any genuine feelings of nationalism.
The efforts of the ruling Indian political class have also contributed to dictating to citizens what must be considered ‘anti-nationalistic’. In early 2016 at JNU, there had been a rally to protest the 2013 hanging of Mohammed Afzal Guru, a Kashmiri separatist convicted of the 2001 Indian Parliament attack. The president of the university’s student union, Kanhaiya Kumar, was arrested and charged with sedition by the Delhi Police for allegedly raising anti-India slogans in a student rally. Kumar denied all the charges. He was later released on interim bail on 2 March 2016 for lack of conclusive evidence, but the incident launched a nationwide debate about the value of free speech and the meaning of ‘anti-nationalism’.
Would Dr B.R.
Ambedkar, the man who led the writing of the Indian Constitution, be considered anti-national today? Ambedkar had an antagonistic relationship with Mahatma Gandhi and many other leaders of the freedom movement in the 1930s and 1940s. He had also rejected the Hindu religion. In 1939, Ambedkar said, ‘Whenever there is any conflict of interest between the country and the untouchables, so far as I am concerned, the untouchables’ interests will take precedence over the interests of the country,’20 a statement that, among several others, clarified his allegiance to his cause over his country. All of these actions would be considered anti-national today!
Would the same tag also be placed on Rabindranath Tagore, the brilliant poet and Nobel laureate? After all, Tagore had rather radical views on nationalism. He believed that intense love for the nation, which manifests in the conviction of national superiority and the glorification of cultural heritage, is used to justify narrow-minded national interest. Writing in 1917, Tagore said, ‘When this organization of politics and commerce, whose other name is the Nation, becomes all powerful at the cost of the harmony of higher social life, then it is an evil day for humanity.’21
And going by the reasoning rationale, would Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, also be considered anti-national? He went against the wishes of the ruler, his father, and abandoned his responsibility to govern Shakya. He must have been distinctly anti-establishment as well to have gone ahead and created a new religion!
But all these debates and arguments were quickly set aside.
The events of the last two years of right-wing political leadership in India have been such that in the name of nationalism we are now often told what we can and cannot eat,22 what we can and cannot watch, what we can and cannot speak about, what we must sing and how. Couples who merely hold hands are harassed and attacked, because expressing love is not ‘Indian’.23 Are all notions of rights to be immobilized in the face of nationalism? Are we yet another nation state in the developing world that initially promised high ideals of emancipation and freedom to its citizens, and is later unable to do so? Or is ‘nationalism’, and even ‘anti-nationalism’, so abstract that its meaning can be manipulated to intimidate and beat down voices of dissent and criticism?
India is a diverse country, and its people have different views about the idea of India and their relationship with it. Instead of silencing those who hold a different view, why can we not respect these differences? And why can the reason for that not be the Constitution or our laws, but basic respect towards humanity and human diversity?
We have given enough importance to politics in regard to nationalism. Perhaps it is because we do not make enough of a distinction between ‘nation’ and ‘nationalism’. As we know, nation states are a nineteenth-century European creation, and following in Europe’s footsteps, India became one only seventy years ago. But nationalism is an emotion, it is a sense of relationship with the community that we agree to be governed with. Nationalism predates nation states. Our ancestors could have felt nationalistic towards their tribe or kingdom, just as we do towards our country. For various reasons, we agree to be part of a common governance structure, and so an entity that has political boundaries—tribe, kingdom, country—is created. Therein lies the link between politics and nationalism. But in a liberal set-up in any era, the way we feel towards a specific entity must not be defined by the political class. It is how we feel towards the entity that must define the agenda of the political class that governs us.
As I wrote early in this essay, I believe that part of the problem is that Indian citizens have lost their sense of themselves as a collective, and therefore, we are unable to establish an authentic and honest relationship with the group entity we call India.
What is India? How do we find her?
Much of our oldest wisdom is in Sanskrit, a language that we do not read any more. Most of our intellectuals for the past 300 years have been trained in Western thought. Indian science and mathematics weakened. Indian political traditions of a mixed Hindu and Islamic character, as theorized and practised in the precolonial kingdoms of the Mughals, Deccani Sultans, Nayaks, Marathas, Rajputs, Sikhs and many others, were delegitimized during the colonial period,24 and have all effectively vanished now. A lot of the existing Sanskrit and Islamic philosophy is unavailable to India’s intellectuals now, and whatever is available is in such an unfamiliar form and context that it is often perceived as irrelevant.
This has resulted in religion and custom emerging as the dominant survivors amidst the vast amounts of our rich wisdom in India. Religion and custom have hence been given a role—encouraged by India’s right-wing political class—to explain the meaning of India to anyone who wants to find her.
Moreover, who wants to search for India? Many of us are happy to let the political class take the lead and inform our opinions. Others seek education or work opportunities in the West, and are sceptical about anything Indian. Meanwhile, the majority is busy trying to somehow fill their empty stomachs instead of contemplating the idea of India.
The problem, therefore, is a very difficult one for us Indians. We cannot find India because we do not have the material, tools or the will to do so any more. Nor can we turn away from the West, as its institutions, such as nation states, democracy, and capitalism, are now available, acceptable and even desirable. This is the opportunity that the Indian right wing exploits. It steps in, bringing to us religion and customs as easy channels to know India once again, and forcing us to relate to our country through those lenses alone.
The truth is that we do not have to necessarily choose between polarities, such as India/West, modernity/tradition, traditional/organic, secular/religious, Hindu/Muslim and so on, to understand and relate to our country. These factors are not necessarily opposed to each other. We can straddle both or several of them in our own unique ways, gradually rendering the lead of the political class to guide us out of our confusion as pointless.
Our self-awareness and ability to make choices regarding our relationship with our country will only come when good quality education at school, in the family and in society is imparted to one and all in the country. This is the only way to ensure that it is not just the 10 per cent elite but even the general masses who are capable of taking informed decisions independent of the agenda of others. We will then be able to differentiate our understanding of nationalism from what we are told by people with an agenda. In a country where everyone is educated and has a rational head on their shoulders, it is hard to singularize ‘one people’. Therefore, it will not be possible to thrust down our throats the idea of only one type of nationalism. Instead, in such a scenario, each of us will be able to leverage our intellectual and emotional breadth to sense how we really feel towards the India we know. That would be our nationalism.
References
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (Brooklyn: Verso Books).
Anderson, Benedict. 1998. The Spectre of Comparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia and the World (Brooklyn: Verso Books).
Barry, Ellen. 2016. Indian cinemas must play the national anthem, Supreme Court rules. New York Times, 30 November.
Chatterjee, Partha. 2014. The agenda for nationalism. Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, pp. 73–88.
Dasgupta, Sanjukta and Chinmoy Guha, eds. 2013. Tagore: At Home in the World (New Delhi: Sage Publications).
Golwalkar, Madhav Sadashiv. 1966. Bunch of Thoughts (Bangalore: Vikrama Prakashan; sole distributors: Rashtrotthana Sahitya).
Islam, Mozaffar. 2002. Nehru on national unity. The Hindu, 12 November.
Jaffrelot, Christophe. 2016b. This land, this nation. Indian Express, 12 January.
Jaffrelot, Christophe. 2016a. Ambedkar against nationalism. Indian Express, 14 April.
Naidu, Shiv. 2017. The war on V-day begins again; anti valentine. Citizen, 15 July.
NDTV. 2017. No need to stand at cinema to prove patriotism: Supreme Court on anthem. https://www.ndtv.com/indi
a-news/no-need-for-anthem-at-cinema-for-patriotismcourt-asks-centre-to-decide-1766085.
Nehru, Jawaharlal. 2016. Selected Speeches, September 1957–April 1963, vol. 4 (New Delhi: Publications Division).
Pandey, Jhimli. 2017. IIT Kharagpur to introduce vastu shastra. Times of India, 17 April.
Rajagopal, Krishnadas. 2016. National anthem must be played before screening of films: Supreme Court. The Hindu, 30 November.
Rashid, Omar. 2016. Saffronisation of education good for India, says minister. The Hindu, 19 June.
Singh, Jyotsna G. 1996. Colonial Narratives, Cultural Dialogues: ‘Discoveries’ of India in the Language of Colonialism (Sussex: Psychology Press).
Some Inputs for Draft National Education Policy 2016: Issue brief, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/nep/Inputs_Draft_NEP_2016.pdf.
Vajpeyi, Ananya. 2012. Righteous Republic: The Political Foundations of Modern India (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).
Vajpeyi, Ananya. 2014. The story of my Sanskrit. The Hindu, 16 August.
Part III
TRAPPED IN OUR OWN MAKING
9
Democracy
Discussing politics is a favoured pastime in India. The newspapers here are chock-full of all things political, with Indian television channels constantly blaring out ‘breaking news’ on politicians and the government, and it is common to hear the buzz of opinions, defence or criticism of politicians, parties and public government schemes.
Indian Instincts Page 15