During India’s freedom struggle, when the Indian nation, as we know it now, was being shaped, the same two contradictory ideas of what constitutes a nation were put forward. The debates in that period of Indian history were influenced by debates and practices regarding nation and nationalism in Europe. If we look at the writings of Savarkar, Golwalkar and Hegdewar, on the one hand, and those of Nehru, Ambedkar and Gandhi, on the other, we can understand the debates about different concepts of the Indian nation. Before we proceed it is important to understand one significant difference between India and modern European nations. There are very few countries left in the world today where there still exist, like in India, so many languages, so many religions and so many cultural identities. The history of many parts of Europe is actually a history of how diversity of religion, language and culture was brutally suppressed to create nations that were usually formed by people speaking the same language and following the same religion. Nationalism in Europe was accompanied by far more violence, it was far more exclusive than in India. We should be very proud of the fact that India is perhaps the only country in the world, which has such a diversity of languages – major languages, not minor languages – and major religions. In that sense it is a unique experiment.
In the early twentieth century Nehru spoke of ‘unity in diversity’. Nehru’s position was also that of the Congress Party. The attempt was to define the Indian nation on the basis of its economic boundary. The concept of ‘swaraj’ was built on the idea that India as a nation would prosper, along with all its citizens, only if we are free of the chains of British colonialism. In this vision of India, everybody was a part of the Indian nation, united in the resolve to be free from British rule. In a sense India was the birthplace of twentieth-century nationalism – not based on blood and race but on economic and political sovereignty. The concept of the Indian nation was to be developed on the basis of the struggle against colonialism and imperialism.
While the above concept of Indian nationalism prevailed, it stood in direct contrast with the ideas of Savarkar, Hegdewar and Golwalkar on one hand and that of Jinnah on the other. The position of Golwalkar and others, adopted by the RSS and other allied groups, suggested that only religion could form the basis of nationalism (not very different from what Jinnah proposed). This concept of nationalism drew from certain ideas about nationalism in Europe. Thus Golwalkar aligned with Hitler, on the question of ethnic minorities being massacred and ‘cleansed’, which Golwalkar felt was an expression of the ‘highest form of racial pride’.
That this brand of nationalism is a derivative of exclusionary European nationalism is clear in the way Golwalkar defines the nation:
"Thus applying the modern understanding of ‘Nation’ to our present conditions, the conclusion is unquestionably forced upon us that in this country, Hindusthan, the Hindu Race with its Hindu Religion, Hindu Culture and Hindu Language, (the natural family of Sanskrit and her offsprings) complete the Nation concept.. “(Ref: We or Our Nationhood Defined). Both Golwalkar and Savarkar were looking at how to build a “modern” nation using religion as its core element. This involved also the glorification of a mythical ‘Hindu’ past. Golwalkar’s concept of nation is defined in terms of five “unities”: geography, race, religion, culture and language. Plurality had no place in such a nation. It is interesting that this vision of nationalism was very close to that proposed by Jinnah, with the latter substituting Muslims for Hindus.
The striking feature of Golwalkar’s variety of nationalism is not just what it claims as its basis but also what it does not. It nowhere talks about the economic basis of nationalism: the right of a people to control its economy, market and its resources. It is not surprising therefore that the RSS did not fight the British: their main focus was against the enemy of the “Hindu” nation the “secularists” and the Muslims. Similarly Jinnah’s Muslim League was content to collaborate with the British as long as it was willing to grant them a ‘muslim nation’.
It is important to note that neither Savarkar nor Jinnah, were never interested in promoting religion, but rather in looking at religion as the basis of building national identities. Neither Savarkar nor Jinnah were religious in their personal lives but for both, religion had a political role.
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें