Many faces of nationalism
Historically, the ideas of nation, nationality, and nationalism have played a progressive role by unifying fragmented communities and small, feudal princely states that were always at war with one another. However, its ugly and violent face has also been witnessed in every modern society, including India, dividing nations on the basis of race and/or religion. These two facets of nation and nationalism could be observed during India’s freedom struggle. On one hand, multiple and diverse communities were brought on one common national platform for the purpose of winning freedom for the whole of India; on the other, champions of the religion-based Two Nation Theory divided society into Hindus and Muslims, and laid the foundations of hatred and separatism.
This anthology of the writings of political leaders, poets, philosophers and men of letters consists of excerpts dealing with the idea of the Indian nation from the late 19th century to the end of 20th century. The large mainstreams of thinking about Indian nationalism mentioned here are: (i) Composite nationalism and culture, of whom Tagore, Gandhi and Nehru were proponents; (ii) Hindu and Muslim communalists struggling to identify themselves with nationalism — M Golwalkar, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Iqbal, Jinnah being advocates; (iii) Liberals who believed in their religion but firmly showed their commitment to secular nationalism, such as Abdul Kalam Azad and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan.
M G Ranade and Surendranath Banerjea of the Liberal school asked for an engagement with the past and emphasised the need for reform of Indian society. Ranade observed, “Revival, as I have said, impossible… as impossible as mass conversion into other faiths….” Continuing with the same logic, Banerjea said, “I ask you, Hindus and Mohamedans to forget your jealousies and your petty differences in the name of your common country and for the promotion of her dearest interests”. How contemporary is Banerjea’s statement for 21st century India?
Bal Gangadhar Tilak rejects the idea of the “alien” when he observes, “I do not consider him an alien who wishes to make an arrangement whereby the country in which he has to live, his children have to live and his future generations have to live, may see good days and be benefitted”. Is the Sangh Parivar listening to Tilak?
As representatives of “religion-centric” nationalism it is instructive to study the differences between Maulana Husain Ahmed Madani and the poet Alama Iqbal in the 1930s. For Madani the word “Quran” meant “composite nationalism”. He regrets that “knowingly or unknowingly the philosophy is being taught to Indian Muslims that nationalism is to be abhorred”. He further regrets that “Muslims are being told that “composite nationalism with non-Muslims is religiously impermissible….” This voice of sanity was deplored by Alama Iqbal and Mohammad Ali Jinnah.
If Muslim intellectuals were divided on the issue, Tagore, Gandhi and Nehru had different approaches to the idea of the nation, too. But all three had a fundamental agreement on the “human aspects of nationalism”. They were unanimous in their opposition to the definition of nationalism linked with religion.
The editor puts C R Rajagopalachari in the category of “Right Liberals”, but CR, as he was commonly known, believed that the “distinguishing feature of Indian culture (is) general tolerance of all variations….” The meaning of Indian nationalism was further deepened by revolutionary nationalists like Bhagat Singh who stood for “azadi” from poverty, untouchability, communal strife and discrimination and exploitation. In “Why I am Atheist” Singh talks of socialism and secularism and this adds flesh and blood to the idea of nationalism.
It is essential to mention here the ideas of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and B R Ambedkar because they have been subjected to diverse interpretations. Patel has been appropriated by the Hindu RSS but to quote him: “we in the government have been dealing with the RSS movement. They want the Hindu Rajya or [that] Hindu culture should be imposed by force. No government can tolerate this…. I have made them an open offer. ‘Change your plans, give up secrecy, eschew communal conflict, respect the constitution of India, show your loyalty to the flag and make us believe that we can trust your words.” Is this Patel a friend of Hindu communalists or an exponent of Gandhi’s Congress?
Similarly, Ambedkar has also misunderstood because in his writings on Pakistan he made certain statements in a specific context. Ambedkar observes that Nation is “a social feeling, a sentiment of oneness”. Ambedkar writes: “Now apply this test to the Muslim claim. Is it or is it not a fact that the Muslims of India are an exclusive group”? Importantly, he adds, “What the Hindus must show is that notwithstanding some differences, there are enough affinities between Hindus and Musalmans to constitute them into one nation, or, to use plain language, which make Muslims and Hindus long to belong together”.
This book offers many insights about the problematic idea of nationalism in India. In the present context when the idea of nationalism is under attack by Hindu communalists, it must be considered essential reading.
INDIAN NATIONALISM
The Essential Writings S Irfan Habib (Editor) Aleph Book Company 258 pages; ~499