Book Review of On Nationalism by Romila Thapar, A. G. Noorani and Sadanand Menon
On Nationalism by Romila Thapar, A. G. Noorani and Sadanand Menon is an effort to trace the root of Hindutva politics and militant nationalism in present day India. It is a collection of essays by Romila Thapar,
A. G. Noorani and Sadanand Menon. The rise of militant Nationalism in present
day India raises many doubts, questions regarding the true nature of
Nationalism and its relevance in India’s polity. Romila Thapar is an eminent historian – an
introduction is hardly necessary. She is presently an Emeritus Professor of
History at JNU, New Delhi. A. G. Noorani is an Indian lawyer, historian and
author of number of books like The Kashmir Question, The Trial of Bhagat Singh,
The RSS and the BJP: A Division of Labour. Sadanand Menon is renowned
journalist who has also an arts editor, columnist and photographer.
A trend can be observed in today’s media of using the word
Nationalism synonymously with Patriotism. Indeed, when we see the word
‘anti-national’ it is ‘anti-patriotic’ that it actually denotes. But are they
necessarily the same? George Orwell said they are not, but they are often
confused. Both words are used interchangeably, because the distinction between
them is often overlooked, either inadvertently or purposefully.
By “patriotism” I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people... Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for the power.
Whether George Orwell’s words are valid in Indian context?
Whether a desire for the power is the
actual motivating factor? We shall soon see.
During the wake of Independence, nationalism meant
Indianness. Other factors like caste and creed were not included in the sentiment
of nationality. Nationalism was more about India as a nation, and not with the
Government that runs it. A nation referred to its people who saw themselves
bound within a territory that sheltered a large number of communities
essentially distinct from each other. The thread that tied them was
nationality. Simply waving flags and shouting slogans like ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’
didn’t imply nationalism – not even symbolically. But over the time, there came
a vast change in our interpretation.
Today nationalism is expressed by showing your hatred
against a particular country, demonstrating your commitment to a particular
community and trolling those who refuse to shout a particular version of
slogan. An Indian who refuses to shout that slogan, is promptly tagged
‘anti-national’, whereas an Indian stacks away black money in foreign banks, or
one who defrauds banks thousands of crores of rupees and gets away with it –
the word ‘anti-national’ is hardly used for them. That is because these things
are not among the agendas of our nationalist squad.
The real destination is a monolithic culture, a nation
united under the umbrella of the ideals of Hindutva. To reach this destination,
the primary vehicle is history, or rather a selective, distorted version of history.
Differences among historians arise when the pseudo-nationalisms exaggerate the importance of a single history of one religious community as being the pre-eminent history of the nation, and denigrate and distort the history of other communities.
The version of the history that we were gifted by our
colonial rulers was mere furniture to run the administration effectively. They
had no real interest in the richness of our cultural diversity that we have
inherited over centuries. The history that they served was structured in a way
that most suited them. The entire history was divided into three parts – the
Hindu era, the Mughal rule and the British colonial period. Emphasis was
naturally given on how Indian subjects suffered under the Mughal tyranny, and
how British came as a saviour to end that period of injustice and violence.
This already prejudiced view was further filtered and enhanced by Hindutva
nationalists. Hindus were portrayed as victims in Mughal era. They spoke of
Hindus being wronged, being enslaved for thousand years by Muslim rulers.
Ironically, the fact that during all this time, the Hindus victimized lower castes, dalits and
Adivasis for two thousand or more years, was hardly discussed. The Sanskrit
was elevated to almost a sacred level, but other languages that were also
popular during this period were deliberately omitted. That the Mughals were most impressive patrons of the
translation of many Sanskrit religious texts into Persian (Mahabharata and
Bhagavad Gita among them) were never mentioned. During these massive
translation projects Brahmana priests
worked together with Persian scholars and were encouraged by both Hindu and
Muslim noblemen of the court alike. Gurus and pirs travelled wide and far to
preach their understanding of religion
across religious and social barriers.
But to speak of victimization is merely to try and impose a particular kind of image of the past onto our present perceptions so as to propagate communal hostility.
The ideology hidden in Nationalism is that a particular race
is entitled to have certain privileges simply because they think they are a
purer and superior race. In 1930s similar ideologies were propagated in Germany
by Nazis. Purity of German society, they argued, could be achieved by
annihilating non-Aryans, that is, the Jews and the Gypsies.
This began with segregating and abusing them and ended with taking them forcibly, trainload by trainload, to special camps where they were gassed and killed.
Liberal thinkers and intellectuals were hounded, attacked
and were forced to flee Germany. Some of them were not as lucky. They ended up
in the concentration camps.
The similarity of this Nazi ideology and that of Golwalkar
was more than shocking. In his book We,
or Our Nationhood Defined (1939) he wrote:
To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic Races – the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well night impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by. Ever since that evil day, when Moslems first landed in Hindustan, right up to the present moment, the Hindu Nation has been gallantly fighting on to take on these despoilers.
~ Source: Wikipedia
Hindutva and Hinduism are characteristically different.
Hinduism is a religion, while Hindutva is a tool for political mobilization.
Hidutva, Romila Thapar says, is rather a Syndicated
Hinduism. Hinduism is all inclusive, whereas Hindutva is selective. For the
latter, its political function is primary.
The word ‘Hindutva’ itself was first connotated this way by V. D. Savarkar in
1923. Later it was adopted by BJP as its ideology in 1989. So naturally, it is
wrong to associate it with the Hindus or Hinduism which has a much broader
aspect.
In his essay Nationalism and Its Contemporary Discontents in
India, A. G. Noorani remarks,
The history of India’s
freedom movement is the history of the law of sedition in India and its
systematic use by the British colonial rulers as a weapon to crush the freedom
movement.
The purpose of this draconian law was to demand subservience
to the colonial interest. But why should a democratic nation demand
subservience from its subject, unless the interest of its ruler differs from
that of the subject? Section 124 – A, is essentially a left-over from the
colonial era. The corresponding section was abolished in UK through the
Coroners and Justice Act, 2009. But in India it still used against writers,
activists, journalists and university students. Section 124-A has been a great
help in harassing intellectuals who chose to disagree with the right-wing
ideology. Mustafa Kamal Sherwani in Secular
Horror: 15 Years Ordeal with Indian Secularism, cited a shocking case of
such harassment,
The first information report for sedition was filed on 18 March 1985. The accused were acquitted on 25 July 2000 – fifteen years later.
Today we have a political climate that is always charged
with tensions especially for the artists, and the writers. Nobody knows when
one accidentally offends the Hindutva nationalists’ sentiments and thereby commits
sedition. Since 1992, when the Babri Masjid was pulled down, this cultural
oppression had become an everyday phenomenon. It seemed now they have acquired certain
immunity from the law.
...street thugs and rioters have threatened, beaten, maimed and assassinated writers, artists, journalists, university professors – anyone, in short, who has dared express themselves in any way that does not conform to what has received their sanction.
From Narendra Dabholkar to Gauri Lankesh – there are many victims
of militant nationalism. Vandalism against art has been perfected to the level
of art itself.
The new Indian aesthetes (who seem to have no qualms emulating the deep cultural tutelage of the Taliban) do not place much value on what ‘pleases’ in art. They focus selectively on what ‘offends’. And that’s a pretty broad criterion to apply. For one can offend with anything.
It seems these people keep a ready supply of kerosene cans
and matchboxes, just in case they find something offensive.
The grim picture has uncanny resemblance to that foreseen by
Khushwant Singh in his book The End of India. It is true that the force of
religion was often summoned by anti-colonial leaders in the process of national
movement. Tilak, Dayananda Saraswati and Bankim Chandra Chatterjee used this
method. Even Mahatma was unable to keep religion apart from politics, though Gandhian
scholars often argue it was more philosophy than religion. This proved rather harmful over the years. Though Nehru
severely criticised the sedition law, the Supreme Court upheld it. Early Congress
leaders were indifferent to these issues, though some of them were liberal
enough. The exploitation of communal issues for the benefit of vote bank dates
back to the time of Indira Gandhi. Though Congress leaders were chief
proponents of this method, they couldn’t perfect it the way today’s right-wing
politicians did. The future portrayed in On Nationalism by Romila Thapar, A. G.
Noorani and Sadanand Menon appears to be that of a theocratic state, with
little or no freedom of speech, and intellectuals living at the mercy of its
rulers.
 |
 |
 |
No comments:
Post a Comment