The title of this post is in quotes because someone told me this. This was some days ago, over lunch in London, something that I stayed with me since. This is one post I started writing, and then deleted, and then tried again, and again - until this moment when I resolved the question of the headline: Rather than trying the feeble 'reimagination' or 'new idea', using this quote directly was better.
Indeed, there is nothing new here. This is the current conversation in India. In fact, suggesting anything else risks being shouted down in India today. However, why this made me reflect is that this was not coming from any zealot, but someone I know and regard highly for intellect. Also, this came out of no online spat or shouting match, but a reasoned conversation about India's future, and came from someone who cares about the country as deeply as anyone could. Finally, and importantly, the person telling me this was liberal and highly educated professional, lest anyone question his credential. In summary, I could not have dismissed this as a non-argument, a statement of faith.
Of course, I did not agree. For me, India is a modern, political, idea, very different from Hinduism, which is an ancient religion. I am sufficiently aware about the ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity of India to disagree with the idea of India as a mere placeholder for a Hindu sphere. But, as I would acknowledge, this stance is also a statement of faith, unless I can satisfactorily answer - "what else can unite India?"
The history books that I read in school quoted Vincent Smith about India having "unity in diversity". This is a nice idea, but one could surely point to the Victorian and Colonial lineage of it. What really united India never had any easy answers. Churchill famously said that India is no more a country than the Equator, implying that this is a geographical expression rather than a political one. This is indeed quite a dominant view, and at the least, a lot of people believed that India was made into a country by the British dominion of it. The fact that the modern country of India still follows the colonial borders, uses many of its geographical and administrative expressions, and the language of English connects the Northern and Southern Indians, makes this a salient fact, not just a conspiracy theory. In more ways than one, the alternative to begrudgingly accepting Hinduism as the binding glue is to accept the Colonial Heritage as the basis of Indian imagination.
And, indeed, that would be wrong. The concept of India did exist years before the British ever arrived - indeed, they were making their journeys to India. And, it did it exist as a political entity - the Mughals were emperors of India - even if its borders were different from what we have today. Beyond political borders, India was a cultural and religious expression: Diana L Eck of Harvard's Divinity School makes the point that India was united through its sacred geography - the pilgrimage trails and sacred places - and to all Indians, this would resonate. This idea also should not sound foreign to those who believe in the existence of something called Christendom or Ummah, which are just as much political expressions as they are religious ones. Even the British tax codes united the country misestimates the unity of identity that Ashoka's roads or Mughal wars achieved.
Then, there is the question of English uniting the country. However, one could trace back the idea of English becoming the administrative language of India to the ideas of Charles Grant, an influential eighteenth century evangelical administrator, who drew his ideas from the success of Persian as the common language being used across India, by Hindus and Muslims alike. The success of Mughal Empire, for Grant, depended on its genius in introducing a foreign language in India, as the Hindus, observed Grant, were quite good at learning languages. So, the idea of an Indian Lingua Franca is not a British invention, but one they merely borrowed.
And, finally, it would be wrong to speak about British roots of Indian unity because the very basis of unity in Modern India was its anti-colonial imagination. That Indian National Congress, and Gandhi in particular, provided a common platform, symbols, messages and ideas, against the British Empire, where all Indians could participate, was a key factor in making of the India as it is today. Not the British influence, but the opposition to it, was at the root of making India.
This is why the point about Hinduism as the uniting force needs more consideration than being one of a partisan debate. We should accept that the idea of India, formulated in the early Twentieth century, needs to refreshed, for several reasons. First, because it is almost seventy years old (Jefferson thought the constitution should be amended every twenty years, as new generations need new rules). Second, the context has changed and no one is fighting the anti-colonial battles anymore. Three, and a related point, the Indians now want to be more globalised, which is the opposite of the sentiments in 1947 when it was about looking inside and rediscovering and rebuilding one's own country. Fourth, India's growing economy, young population and spreading literacy create an altogether different context than the devastated economy and disease and caste-ridden country of the 1947. There were some failures in the last Seventy years, but many successes - and it makes abundant sense to rethink what India stands for, and look beyond the legacies of the colonial past, with greater hope and aspiration than ever before.
This brings me to the key point of my answer: This could not be Hinduism. The assertion makes sense at a superficial level - it is perhaps the one common thing visible now - but not just that it excludes two-thirds of the Indian population, there is no such thing as 'Hinduism' as its most ardent supporters would like to claim. The public sphere of Hinduism and the Indian public sphere made of English and other cultivated languages (and the social media space this occupies) may now be one and the same, making the idea seem obvious, but we know that the caste Hindus make up only about 20% of India's population. This is less than obvious, because Indian census never tabulated the castes till 2010, and because the Caste Hindus dominate all the professions and educational sphere in India: But they remain a smallish minority. Secondly, despite all those claims of Hinduism being an open and flexible religion (including all the jokes about 'atheist Hindus'), when someone talks of 'Hinduism', we are necessarily looking at the doctrinal core of a religious practise, which is built on exclusion and superstition.
One may claim most Muslims and Christians in India were from Hindu lineage, lower castemen who converted. However, this does not prove Hinduism to be a democratic and open religion, but rather a cruel practise that excluded a lot of people. In fact, as both the Muslim and the British administrators of India correctly understood, it is Hinduism and its divisive practises that caused structural weaknesses of Indian polity, and this is why India as a political entity could be subjugated. In essence, while the modern Liberal imagination may confuse India's culture and Hinduism as one and the same, they are not: Hinduism divided India more than it ever united it.
So, finally, what can unite India then? Our time may be about building walls and pulling up drawbridges, but hope has not yet lost the potency. One does not have to necessarily look to past for building the future. And, one could indeed look at India's past, its divisions and its successive domination by foreign powers, and see this not with shame but for the strengths it provides: It makes India, I shall claim, 'anti-fragile', more flexible and open, polymorphous and inventive rather than rigid in the quest of a singular identity. It is 'Indianness', the ability to deal with diversity without putting everyone in the same mould, the cultural affinity with nature (in the form of whichever God one prefers to worship), our ability to learn new languages and being open to new ideas, that can form the basis of a new national idea: One that would be inclusive, in sync with our future and hopeful.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Nations are ideas. We try to fashion them as territories. But how can a river, a mountain ridge or sometimes an imaginary line in the middle of a field can explain the wide division in the lives, thoughts and futures of the people who live on different sides? Nations are not the people too. Indeed, people build nations and become its body. But the soul of the nation is an idea: People come together on an idea to build a nation. While that's what a modern nation is - an idea - and that way exceptionalism is not an American exception, very few nations are as completely defined by an idea as Pakistan. There was hardly any political, geographic or military rationale of Pakistan other than the idea of an Islamic homeland in South Asia. [In that way, the ideological brother of Pakistan in the family of nations is Israel] This, abated by the short term political calculations of some backroom colonialists, created a modern state which must be solely sustained on that singular idea. Religi
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen was gui
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
This post is a reaction to Aatish Taseer's evocative obituary of secular India in the Atlantic ( read here ). While I agree with it mostly - and share the reservations about the direction and the future of India - I differ with the author on one key aspect: I do not agree with his portrayal of a resurgent Bharat eating up a secular India. In fact, I believe while Mr Taseer regrets the Indian elite's loss of connection with the realities of day to day life of the country, his very presentation of Bharat and India as oppositional entities stems from that incomprehension. While I understand that he is only using these categories as RSS uses them - to effectively other the English-speaking elites and non-Hindus - I believe it is a mistake to describe the profound changes in contemporary India as the ascendance of Bharat. I grew up in Bharat. I never learnt English until late in life, when I started working. My growing-up world was one of small-town India, vernacu
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was, as
Introduction: Hastings in the history of Indian Education Whether or not one includes Warren Hastings in the history of Education in India is a matter of perspective. If writing the history of education means writing the history of schools, the impact of Hastings' administration would be quite limited. If anything, the rapid implosion of local rulers in Eastern, Southern and Northern India during Hastings' tenure had meant a bleak period for the indigenous education system, as patronage and funds would have dwindled away for many of them. The Company administration really concerned itself with the schooling of the natives only after 1813, as Nurullah and Naik rightly pointed out ( see my earlier post ) and one can legitimately start the story at this point. However, if history of Education in India is to encompass the transformation of Indian Scholarship, on which foundation the new, colonial, system of Education would be built, the story must start with Warren Hast
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
As India's democracy reaches a critical juncture, with a very real danger of a authoritarian take-over, Rabindranath Tagore's birth anniversary is a perfect occasion to revisit the founding idea of India once again. There are many things in his politics that we may need to dust up and reconsider: Tagore's political ideas, because of his inherent aversion of popular nationalism and enthusiasm about Pan-Asianism and universalism, were outside the mainstream of the Indian National Movement, seen as impractical and effectively shunned. He was seen mostly as the Poet and the mystic, someone whose politics remains in the domain of the ideas rather than action. Tagore himself, after a brief passionate involvement in politics during the division of Bengal by Lord Curzon in 1905, withdrew from political action: He never belonged to the political class, despite his iconic status and itinerant interventions, such as returning the Knighthood after the massacre of Amritsar in 1919.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.