01-18-2005, 06:34 AM
Empty sense of nation
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Empty sense of nation
Sumaiya Salahuddin
With reference to the ongoing debate in your editorial page columns on nation and nationalism, and specifically with reference to what Mr N Jamal Ansari wrote recently, that India needs Indian nationalism and not Hindu nationalism, I am at a loss to understand why some people are opposing this down-to-earth comment. I suspect those who object have not studied nationalism properly.
Nationalism may be defined as an "emotional and intellectual attitude" that induces one to place, plead and work for the collective interests of the people belonging to one's own nation. India presents a broad and complex spectrum of religious, cultural and linguistic situation. These religious, cultural and linguistic diversities that have gone into the weaving of the rich but complex mosaic of Indian culture have to be understood in their proper context, if we are to have a better appreciation of Indian nationalism.
No doubt, intellectuals from later Vedic period onwards have been trying to evolve the idea of nationalism and a centrally governed state. But the idea never fully concretised. For the first time in history, Mughals succeeded in rearing up a centralised empire. It was during these periods that the concept of a unitary India was born and realised. Later, the British further cemented it. Against this background, it is difficult to understand why some people did not show more heightened consciousness of the real nationalism.
Hindu nationalism is relatively a new phenomenon. During the freedom movement, religion was a major factor in the political thinking of some of our leaders. They presented India as Mother who should be worshipped. Leaders like Lajpat Rai and Bipin Chandra Pal made extensive use of religion for political purpose. Savarkar gave birth to the concept of Hindutva, which was essentially born out of dreams of governing India politically. Some leaders are still dreaming about a Hindu-controlled state. But in the process they forget some of the vital documented points. Savarkar apologised to the British empire six times and promised to obey and help them. Thus, he cannot be called a nationalist, and his theories became redundant.
We should take into account dangers of a Hindu rashtra as conceived by Savarkar and others. In this connection, the thoughts of Savarkar, Golwalkar and, contemporaneously, Mr LK Advani are well known. Aurobindo Ghose was also the exponent of this separatist idea. He said in 1908, "Nationalism is not a mere political programme. It is a religion that has come from God." He further observed in 1909, "I say no longer that nationalism is a creed, a religion. I say that it is the Sanatan Dharma, which for us is nationalism. This Hindu nation was born with the Sanatan Dharma." Aurobindo, however, was not alone. Bal Gangadhar Tilak gave birth to Shivaji and Ganesh festivals. This increased the schism between Hindus and Muslims.
Those who support Hindu nationalism should understand that nationalism is not a function of numbers. Moreover, nationality is not determined by religion. Had it been so, Europe would have seen only one Christian state, and Arabs would have unified into a single nation. But this is not the case.
Mr Ansari is a true spokesperson of Indianness. Instead of logically countering his arguments, some people are trying to locate fault with him. This is not intellectual justice, but intellectual violence. For the country's sake, let's give a decent burial to Hindu rashtravad.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Empty sense of nation
Sumaiya Salahuddin
With reference to the ongoing debate in your editorial page columns on nation and nationalism, and specifically with reference to what Mr N Jamal Ansari wrote recently, that India needs Indian nationalism and not Hindu nationalism, I am at a loss to understand why some people are opposing this down-to-earth comment. I suspect those who object have not studied nationalism properly.
Nationalism may be defined as an "emotional and intellectual attitude" that induces one to place, plead and work for the collective interests of the people belonging to one's own nation. India presents a broad and complex spectrum of religious, cultural and linguistic situation. These religious, cultural and linguistic diversities that have gone into the weaving of the rich but complex mosaic of Indian culture have to be understood in their proper context, if we are to have a better appreciation of Indian nationalism.
No doubt, intellectuals from later Vedic period onwards have been trying to evolve the idea of nationalism and a centrally governed state. But the idea never fully concretised. For the first time in history, Mughals succeeded in rearing up a centralised empire. It was during these periods that the concept of a unitary India was born and realised. Later, the British further cemented it. Against this background, it is difficult to understand why some people did not show more heightened consciousness of the real nationalism.
Hindu nationalism is relatively a new phenomenon. During the freedom movement, religion was a major factor in the political thinking of some of our leaders. They presented India as Mother who should be worshipped. Leaders like Lajpat Rai and Bipin Chandra Pal made extensive use of religion for political purpose. Savarkar gave birth to the concept of Hindutva, which was essentially born out of dreams of governing India politically. Some leaders are still dreaming about a Hindu-controlled state. But in the process they forget some of the vital documented points. Savarkar apologised to the British empire six times and promised to obey and help them. Thus, he cannot be called a nationalist, and his theories became redundant.
We should take into account dangers of a Hindu rashtra as conceived by Savarkar and others. In this connection, the thoughts of Savarkar, Golwalkar and, contemporaneously, Mr LK Advani are well known. Aurobindo Ghose was also the exponent of this separatist idea. He said in 1908, "Nationalism is not a mere political programme. It is a religion that has come from God." He further observed in 1909, "I say no longer that nationalism is a creed, a religion. I say that it is the Sanatan Dharma, which for us is nationalism. This Hindu nation was born with the Sanatan Dharma." Aurobindo, however, was not alone. Bal Gangadhar Tilak gave birth to Shivaji and Ganesh festivals. This increased the schism between Hindus and Muslims.
Those who support Hindu nationalism should understand that nationalism is not a function of numbers. Moreover, nationality is not determined by religion. Had it been so, Europe would have seen only one Christian state, and Arabs would have unified into a single nation. But this is not the case.
Mr Ansari is a true spokesperson of Indianness. Instead of logically countering his arguments, some people are trying to locate fault with him. This is not intellectual justice, but intellectual violence. For the country's sake, let's give a decent burial to Hindu rashtravad.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->