Manu Bhagavan, a History Prof in America, wrote an article a dozen years ago for the EPW which casts a sharp light on the historical amnesia of the Left-Liberal Academic establishment which was in the ascendant under UPA. Essentially, these pedagogues had convinced themselves that the Indian Freedom Struggle was ab ovo Secular- Hindus within it had no truck with the Hindu Nationalism. Then some nasty Hindutva types infiltrated it. This caused Naughtiness to occur.
The destruction in 1992 of the Babri masjid and the waves of violence that have followed it in India, coupled with the rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party to political prominence, have led in recent years to a flourishing of studies on “Hindutva” or “Hindu nationalism”. Yet for all these works, very few have examined the relationship between the Indian National Congress and the right wing religious politics of the Hindu nationalist movement. What work has examined this nexus has largely focused on its two varying poles. The first has dealt with the link between 19th century reform movements and the post-1920 emergence of militant Hindu religious organisations, most notably the Hindu Mahasabha and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
The INC, when led by Parsis like Naoroji or Ferozeshah Mehta, was indeed 'Secular'. But it had not mass following precisely for that reason. Moreover, the mass of Parsis were sensible enough to see that the British Empire was a boon for minorities. Only a few Parsi industrialists- like the great Jamshetji Tata- thought that Parsis could have an even brighter future under a properly Listian (i.e. protectionist) Nation State. Nevertheless, it is notable that Parsi influence vanished entirely in Pakistan and declined greatly in India- where, going forward, demographic collapse remains a possibility.
British officials noted that the cow-protection movement is what had turned the INC into an organization with mass appeal. They could see, in 1913, that some 70 percent of those in jail were Arya Samajis. The 'Garam Dal' within Congress as well as the growing number of Revolutionaries were directly linked to Religious leaders like Dayanand Saraswati and his successors within the Arya Samaj as well as Swami Vivekananda. Aurobindo, Lala Hardayal, but also Mahatma Gandhi after he hosted Bhai Parmanand in South Africa, embraced celibacy and adopted Hindu dress and tropes.
There can be no doubt that Congress gained mass support only because of its association with Hindutva. Mahatma Gandhi was present at the founding of the Hindu Mahasabha. Indeed, his title of 'Mahatma' was acquired from the Arya Samaji leader who simultaneously promoted himself to the level of 'Swami'. Gandhi's sojourn in Champaran was a distraction from the anti-cow slaughter riots in Bihar which were largely successful. But, it was precisely because of Gandhi's close ties to the Hindutva element that Khilafat leaders were prepared to do a deal with him. If India had got what Ireland and Afghanistan and Egypt got in 1922- i.e. if Gandhi had not called off the Non Cooperation Movement- both the Hindutvadis and the Khilafatis would have got what they wanted- viz hegemony where they were numerically dominant with some mutual accommodation of minorities. Instead, Gandhi's pusillanimity gave the Brits- when at their militarily weakest- got an indefinite extension of their power to dictate the pace and shape of reform. However, it wasn't till ten years later- at the Second Round Table Conference- that Gandhi scored his biggest own goal by managing to unite all the minorities- including the Sikhs!- against the INC.
Chetan Bhatt(2001), for instance, has carefully fleshed out the roles played by such mainstream nationalists and Congress stalwarts as Lala Lajpat Rai in developing the foundational ideological rationale bridging earlier ideas with the more rigidly communal ones that followed.
Lal, Bal and Pal held the same views of Indian Nationalism. It must be either Hindu or it would be merely a cover for Pan-Islamism. In 1913, Bipin Chandra Pal wrote-
In India the Indian National Congress at first, and the more virile Swadeshi Movement later on, quickened a self consciousness in the country, and especially among the Hindu populations. The Swadeshi propaganda developed a particularly pronounced Hindu ideal, which was naturally interpreted by some at least of the Mahomedan leaders in the country as a distinct and real menace to their own political future. Had they thrown themselves heart and soul into this new Nationalist Movement in India, this excessive Hindu emphasis might have been very easily removed. For then the Swadeshi Movement would have developed into a purely economic and political propaganda fully representative of the composite Indian people. But they held aloof. Many of them even set themselves up openly against this movement. The result was that the Hindu influences became predominant and the Hindu note the most pronounced in this new upheaval.
It must, however, be admitted that the Hindu bhadralok opposed the Partition of Bengal because they hoped to continue to dominate it. Muslims were right to oppose 'Swadeshi'. Indeed, dirigiste, 'Listian', economic programs should be opposed by the vast majority because, unless entrepreneurs really are innovative (as they were in Japan but weren't in India), all that happens is that rents are created and then contested in a manner destructive of democratic processes.
Pal goes on to say-
It was, perhaps, well that this should have been so. For this Hindu Nationalism will gradually help the evolution of a real Federal Nationalism among us, which seems clearly to be the ideal-end and the ultimate aim of modern historic evolution in India.
This is true. India exists because Hindus want it to exist. Where non-Hindus are the majority there is secessionist sentiment. This is perfectly understandable. Even a very poor country can afford 'public goods' of a kind only valuable to the rulers. In a democracy this would be the majority community. It is foolish to want Britain to stop being so goddamned British or America to stop being majority White. The fact is, people emigrate to these countries to partake of that Britishness or Americanism.
For the realisation of this Federal Ideal of Nationalism it is necessary that the different Indian communities, representing different world-cultures, must evolve in their own way, along their own line, preserving and developing to the full their respective personalities, be autonomous social units themselves, and then join the others, as members of a great Federation, which will present to the world a new and far more advanced and complex type of Nationality than what the world has so far known. I have always read this as the one eternal aim of historic evolution in India.
I do not, therefore, regret this Hindu emphasis of what in the nature of things was bound to be practically a Hindu Movement. I do not regret that our Mahomedan friends practically kept away from it. But what, I regret is their spirit of antagonism. What the situation really required of them was the initiation of a real Moslem National Movement, along parallel lines, moved by the same spirit, working for the same ultimate end, but organised in Islamic forms, with the symbols and sacraments, familiar to higher Islamic thought and culture.
This was not mere pious sentiment. It is noteworthy that Hindu and Sikh revolutionaries, like Amba Prasad Sufi and Ajith Singh, went as missionaries of anti-Imperialism to Persia and Mesopotamia so as to oppose British military intervention in those countries. Khilafat, as such, was welcomed by the Hindutvadis. The notion was that the Muslim minority would gain support from the Hindu community for the anti-imperialist struggle in the Muslim heartland. This is similar to the notion, when I was a kid, that Indian Muslims would be appeased by Indian opposition to Israel. Then the Israelis started exporting cool stuff which the Indian Army wanted to get its mitts on. So, India abandoned anti-Zionism. Still, 20 years ago, an Israeli PM couldn't get a photo-op at the Taj Mahal because of Muslim protests. Now, Israel is best buddies not just with India but also the Gulf and the Saudis and so forth.
In the remainder of his article, Manu Bhagwan picks on K.M Munshi- not Rajendra Prasad or Sardar Patel- as the Hindutva 'trojan horse' who somehow subverted Indian Nationalism post-Independence. This is very silly. Munshi left Congress, where he had little role, for the utterly useless Swatantra Party. He did help found the VHP but it is the RSS which has prevailed. Politically, the genealogy of the BJP is through Shyama Prasad Mukherjee and then through Atal and Advani to Modi and Amit. Following the Supreme Court verdict on the Ram Mandir, the Singhal/Togadia element has been rendered utterly impotent. This was not obvious even ten years ago. But it is obvious now. Sadly, the Academy has gone too far down its own rabbit-hole to acknowledge reality. The Amnesia of the Historians is the condition for their trade. Those who will not learn from History are condemned to teach it.
No comments:
Post a Comment