Republic of India: 2.0

Republic of India: 2.0

January 2022

The recent Republic Day celebrations set tongues wagging with some surprise events signalling a transformation in the national discourse.  Replacing "Abide with Me" by the evocative "Aye Mere Watan ke Logon" in the list of songs played during 'Beating the Retreat', merging of the Amar Jawan Jyoti with that at the National War memorial and the installation of the statue of Subhash Chandra Bose near India Gate were more visible signs of the transformation. These visible and in your face changes, follow many earlier ones which had roiled the opposition and many others. The Central Vista redevelopment, the high visibility media coverage of inauguration of the Ram Mandir and the Kashi Viswanath projects are all pointers to a changing India, which is not averse to displaying affinity for its past grandeur and religious roots. These are indications of a break from the colonial cultural traditions and the pre-Independence legacy. But these changes have been opposed tooth and nail by the opposition and numerous others who believe that continuity of traditions provides a semblance of stability during changing political regimes.

These changes are an attempt to change the Indian narrative from that nurtured since Independence. The root of these tussles for the soul of India lies in differences between those who seek inspiration from the constitution and the Western traditions passed on from pre- independence years and the new crop, who look to India's glorious past and events of post-independence India to create a new Bharat.  The implications of the two approaches provide divergent ideas of how to view today's India and Indian nationalism. Let's explore the two ideas without any prior assumptions of which is more appropriate.

Simply stated, the first idea seeks its inspiration only from the constitution, basing nationalism on the concepts enshrined in it.  In this manner, it does not seek any guidance from India's past. This approach meets the ideas of the Western oriented and minority elite, since it disassociates them from ancient India's glory associated with religious beliefs. This approach makes India just a state or a political entity. The nationalism it inspires is civic, based on freedoms given in the constitution, political institutions and selective portions of Indian history.

The second approach views India as an uninterrupted civilizational entity from its ancient glorious past, considering periods of invasions, subjugation and colonization as aberrations. This approach sees Bharat, as a nation with a consciousness stretching beyond the Indus valley civilization and continuing through the troubled periods and coming to fruition post-independence. This national consciousness, supposedly pervades all Indians, irrespective of the diversity of geography, faith, beliefs and customs.  While India comprises numerous nations in terms of language, religion, beliefs and ethnicities, people are united in their civilizational roots and consciousness. India is thus viewed as a civilizational state and nationalism is inspired from the common consciousness of civilizational roots.

Even a cursory understanding would reveal that the two perspectives are mutually exclusive. Therein lies the rub and the intellectual fight for the soul of India, which occasionally spills out onto the streets in different garbs leading to violence. Adherents of the two views are firm in their beliefs. The resolution or the path ahead has to thus emerge from the people of India or Bharat, through electoral verdicts. In the initial period, the outcomes would be ambiguous, but over time the choice would become clear.

Even as we await the verdict, it may be worthwhile understanding the experiences of others. China is considered a civilizational state. China's approach is moored to its historical experiences and even today looks back in pain at the hundred years of humiliation when it was colonised and subjugated. China goes back and looks at itself as the middle kingdom, where the entire world paid homage to its kings. It believes it has an uninterrupted consciousness that stretches back to ancient time even as different dynasties ruled the mainland.  Its nationalism is civilizational inspired by pride in its past glory.

Countries such as UK, Germany, France and others such as Japan and Iceland are considered as nation-states in the European mould. These countries have common language, beliefs, customs and religion and the nation and the state are coterminous. They derive their nationalism from their common heritage and historical experiences, remembering and celebrating them.

USA on the other hand is quite unique. It came into being after a struggle, shaking off England's colonial yoke, going through a civil war, finally emerging as a state built on its unique set of freedoms, democratic values, beliefs and institutions. The population initially comprised white settlers from the British-isles and other Europeans with a common glue of being white skinned, similar beliefs and religion. But with the passage of time, civil rights movement and immigrants from South America, China and India resulted in introducing diversity. The common glue since then has remained the set of freedoms, individuality, values and institutions. US nationalism is thus civic. The country however, attempts to celebrate its diversity wearing it as a badge of honour.  

Pakistan's is a peculiar case. Partition saw its inhabitants abandoning their Indian heritage and shifting allegiance to distant lands and history. Their elite looked Westward for scripting new set of values and beliefs. Pakistan yoked itself to the Arabian bandwagon, seeking inspiration from the religious origins located in a distant land. It is today a country adrift, without any idea of what it stands for, its source of nationalism and its core strengths.  Its people see little in common among themselves, having forgotten historical affinities.

People of India are today literate and quite capable of thinking for themselves. They will over time, provide their views on the basis of Indian nationalism. The road to this outcome would not be easy nor peaceful. We can however, rest assured that India would emerge out of such a duality quite successfully, as it has in the past.