Colonial mentality’: A misinterpreted notion that stitched together a nation

 India as a country might have existed even without colonial rule, but would that have been a ‘modern nation’? There's no simple answer to this

The term ‘colonial mentality’, often used by cultural nationalists today, especially towards their western-educated compatriots, has got one thinking. If one supposes that it applies to those Indians who do not value their own cultural past but only look to the West, it seems valid enough.

But let us first consider what the Indian nation owes to colonialism. There are, of course, those who say that without the British, India would not have been unified politically, but there was a Mughal empire before the British arrived. India might not have had its present shape if that empire had continued or evolved into other things but it could still have remained a unity of sorts.

But while India as a country might have existed, could that India ever have been a ‘modern nation’, considering that our Constitution owes itself to western models? Independent India’s first leaders were mostly lawyers and it was their training in the western legal system that made them see the need to depend on social values defined as essential in western democracies (democracy, egalitarianism, justice) and duly have them enshrined.

Yet, many still continue to refer to the “colonial mindset” as a negative factor, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi.  In November last, on the occasion of Constitution Day, Modi said “the colonial mindset is giving rise to many distortions”.  On another occasion, he said “India’s growth story is being disrupted by forces with colonial mindsets”.

In writing about the origins of nationalism in colonial India, political scientist Partha Chatterjee (The Nation and its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories, 1993) notes that articulation of anti-colonial nationalism rested on a separation between two distinct spheres, namely, the spiritual and the material. The material realm is one of economy, statecraft, science and technology, in which the superiority of the West, represented by the colonial power, is an established fact. In the material domain, therefore, the historical task before the colonised was to reproduce for itself, the benefits of the project of colonial enlightenment and modernity.

Sovereign in the spiritual

The spiritual realm, on the other hand, represented true sovereignty for the colonised. It was a sphere of cultural distinctness from, and also superiority over, the colonisers, and hence needed to be preserved in that uncontaminated way. If the material sphere represented the superiority of the colonial rulers, it was the spiritual domain which was the main source of strength and autonomy for the colonised.

Therefore, the spiritual domain was one that needed to be preserved from colonial encroachments. This symbolised nationalism among the colonised people. Any kind of reforms or intervention in the said domain would be completely in the hands of the colonised masses.

Therefore, the essence of the ‘imagined’ nation rested in the so-called spiritual or inner domain in which the colonised masses were sovereign despite being ruled by an alien, foreign power in the material sphere. Extrapolating it to today, we could say that for a modern India to emerge, it would necessarily have to depend on the West in virtually every field that could have played a part it its ‘design’ as an independent nation – economics, political structure, and the areas of science and technology.

But I would also like to make an intervention here, which is that once the nation was constructed according to such material necessities, it would need to keep producing citizens who were well-versed in these areas. Which means that the education system would also have to be heavily western-oriented to produce them.

Where material and spiritual meet

That brings us to the spiritual domain in which the colonised masses were said to be sovereign and where there was strong resistance to allowing the colonial state to intervene since it affected ‘national culture’. But if national culture must also be built upon, a question would be whether it would not need to be studied through methods implicating the ‘material’?

Let us take classical music, for instance, something that cultured Indians are justly proud of. Would it be enough to simply preserve it – as in a museum – or would we need to understand how it came about to be this way? A matter worthy of investigation (for instance) could be why Indian and western classical music evolved to emphasise melody and harmony, respectively.

Since it is widely believed that music owes originally to prayer, a hypothesis could be that common prayer led to harmony in music while the notion of the personal god led to melody. Voices singing in unison would need to be organised for the result to be ‘musical’.

Another key observation is that for the spiritual in culture – which would include the arts – to bloom, it would need growth, since culture should address the contemporary in some way. But once we introduce study and development, I would argue that the ‘material realm’ would naturally intrude into the spiritual one. Apart from sociological investigations, music, for instance, would need to use the technology available to the fullest to improve upon itself.

Personal goals

Chatterjee does not elaborate on this aspect but the ‘spiritual’ side of Indian culture as opposed to the ‘material’ realm that the West dominates, owes, arguably, to Indian modes of thinking that place emphasis on personal salvation rather than social transformation and progress. But, extending the argument, how are a group of individuals preoccupied with personal (spiritual) ends to come together to imagine/create a nation collectively, entirely through such personal goals? For such a collection of individuals to band together with common ‘national’ objectives, they would necessarily have to stray deep into the ‘material’ realm.

Lastly, we also need to interrogate the notion of an ‘uncontaminated’ national culture. While one may be proud of the cultural achievements of the people in a designated space or community to which one belongs (a school, a family, a village), associating that pride with the ‘modern nation’ infects the notion. It is only the construct of the nation that makes a Kannada speaker from Bengaluru see an achievement in Bengal as his or her own, but that construct came about because of exercises undertaken in the material realm, like the writing of the Constitution. We could say that unless all these aspects are duly noted, the ‘colonial mentality’ will only remain a term of abuse.

(MK Raghavendra is a writer on politics, culture and film)

Source: The Federal, 4/05/22

How far can dharmic principles sustain India as a Hindu rashtra?

 If India is to be a ‘Hindu nation’ the only course would arguably be to take advantage of the fact that there is little agreement among Hindus as to what its essential beliefs are

The notion of India as a Hindu nation is gradually gaining ground across the social spectrum. As instances, a judge from the Meghalaya High Court recently declared that India should have been declared a Hindu country. Ex-IPS officer from Gujarat DG Vanzara demanded that “India be declared a Hindu rashtra by establishing dharma satta (reign of religion)”.

British journalist Hasan Suroor has also drawn attention by saying that just as Britain is a Christian country but has government practices that are secular, India could legitimately become a Hindu country but remain secular in practice by treating all citizens as equal and making sure that their religious and civil rights are protected by law.

The act of conflating Hindu-Muslim relations with secularism and suggesting that minorities can be safe only in a constitutionally secular state was a mistake as it led to branding anyone who didn’t buy into the liberals’ definition of secularism as ‘communal’.

Since India has not been wanting for believing Hindus, Nehruvian secularism and especially its opportunistic use in later years — as under Rajiv Gandhi — strengthened Hindutva and made it more aggressive than it might have been. The Congress had accommodated people across the political spectrum – including both leftists and Hindu traditionalists – and it is on record that in 1947-48 there was actually a move through Sardar Vallabhai Patel to merge the Hindu Mahasabha with the Congress since the Hindu right ‘should not imagine that they had a monopoly over Hindu culture and religion.’

But Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination and Patel’s death put an end to such a move.

How to define Hindu nation?

With the religious gulf widening in India and a resurgence of Nehruvian values unlikely, Suroor’s viewpoint looks the sanest. But what engages me is a different issue and pertains to the difficulties in defining a ‘Hindu nation’ with Hindu belief as its basis.

There are several theocratic Islamic countries and the Vatican City is also theocratic, with an absolute theocratic elective monarchy guided by the principles of a Christian religious school of thought. All these are theocratic countries and they have laws based on religious belief. The issue is whether Hindu belief can similarly serve as a way of building a nation through appropriate laws. Vanzara’s pronouncements imply that there are Hindus who dream of that eventuality.

The appropriate place to look for ways to constitute a Hindu nation would be through the writings of Hindutva’s political theorists. Of the three principal ones, the earliest, VD Savarkar, was primarily concerned with the Hindu identity and saw Hindus as being “People who live as children of a common motherland” and to whom loyalty towards it was natural; he did not envisage a moment when the constitution of a Hindu nation according to beliefs might be needed.

MS Golwalkar, who tried to propagate dharmic teachings, believed that all the elements required to develop as a great nation were present in Hindu society in their entirety and saw Manu as the lawgiver.

Deendayal’s ‘Integral Humanism’

Deendayal Upadhyaya authored a concept called ‘Integral Humanism’, according to which humankind had four hierarchically organized attributes that corresponded to the four human objectives of dharma (moral duties), artha (wealth), kama (desire) and moksha (salvation). While all of them were pertinent, dharma was the most basic and moksha the ultimate objective.

‘Integral humanism’ uses the word ‘human’ and the natural question here is whether ‘human’ pertains to individual aims or those of society as a whole; and the two are certainly not identical. If one listens to the religious discourses offered by seers and religious leaders, they similarly discuss the way one should lead one’s life but hardly ever do they offer guidance on how humans should deal with each other in social situations. Two ardent followers of the same seer, who understand his/her teaching differently from each other, could come into personal conflict and that might never be resolved.

Religious precepts could lead one to ‘moksha’, but would society as a whole even pursue that? This is where the notion of ‘Paramatma’ in Hinduism is different from the God of the Judaeo-Christian religions. Paramatma is a mystical concept that does not dictate ethics and can therefore not punish in the way that God does. A nation is primarily interested in a just society and free individuals are a corollary to that.

Dharmic principles differ from law in a theocracy

My proposition here is that this ‘inward looking’ tendency of Hinduism, its valorisation of personal salvation as the ultimate goal, makes it difficult for it to become the basis for the constitution of a fair society and a modern nation founded on its precepts. It is the strictness of God and His capability to inflict punishment equally for wrongdoing that is the basis of law in a theocracy, but dharmic principles do not offer us anything like that — since they are relative to one’s station, something that cannot be determined accurately to be acceptable to everyone involved in any conflict.

Swadharma’ (acting according to one’s nature) is hardly reliable and a fair arbiter is evidently needed. The dependency of dharma on station resulted in law like the Manusmriti, which is often grotesque; it can, if followed, break up Hindus into warring caste groups. Here, for instance, is 8: 417: “A Brahmana may confidently seize the goods of (his) Sudra (slave); for, as that (slave) can have no property, his master may take his possessions.”

If India is to be a ‘Hindu nation’ the only course would arguably be to take advantage of the fact that there is little agreement among Hindus as to what its essential beliefs are. This means that the nation would be free to be a modern one that was secular in the actual sense of the term rather than the way it was understood. Its (common) laws could not depend on religious beliefs but on the notions of justice, tolerance and egalitarianism as are understood in the modern world.

MK Raghavendra

Source; The federal, 5/06/22

The idea of Indian nationalism did not come from the Constitution. It has ancient roots

 Reducing India to a civic nation bound only by the Constitution disregards its history, ancient heritage, culture and civilisation. I would describe India as a “civilisation state”. This is not just a view from one part of the country. There have been writings since time immemorial, where you have this concept, and it is very important to revisit them. It predates the freedom struggle and the arrival of those who eventually made India their homeland. Celebrating history beyond religion is very important. We have to face the challenge of a distorted history: Distorted both because history is “his” story — I think the “her” story also has to come. And the overturning of E H Carr’s dictum: “Facts are sacred, interpretations vary.” Unfortunately, in independent India, and to a certain extent a university I belong to, overturned this dictum: “Interpretations are sacred, facts can vary.” And this is very dangerous. This is a civilisation that preached “ekam sat bahudha vadanti”, that the truth may be one but there are different parts to it. This is the basic essence of the celebration of diversity, dissent, difference, as well as democracy.

Why are we today trying to re-emphasise this point? It’s because we are made to imagine our history with self-loathing and self-hatred. One period is excessively glorified. And I, who come from the south, feel even worse. The longest-ruling dynasty in India was the Chola dynasty, which ruled this country for 2,000 years. Is there any road named after any of the great kings of the Cholas? Not one in Delhi. There is a huge bias, agenda-setting as well as gatekeeping. And it is extremely important that we revisit these ideas and look into the gaps. As most of you know India is not a post-independent idea of a nation. The Rig Veda defined the geographical existence of Bharatavarsha as well as the Sapta Sindhu, a land encompassing seven principal rivers. The Vishnu Purana descried the geographical location of Bharatavarsha. Composed in the 2nd century BC, it says that the land that lies to the north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bharat. And there dwell the progeny of Bharat. The word “rashtra” was used in the Rig Veda, Yajur Veda and the Atharva Veda. Rashtra is not only a merely geopolitical concept, it is also a civilisational concept. It is a kind of thought which keeps a patriot in the frame of mind to transcend all the material and immediate interests and protect the motherland from all calamities, aggression and evil. Love for the country is not the same as love for the nation and self-determination, sovereignty or even structuring a composite culture. Rashtra bhakti is a subconscious feeling of being an Indian or a person belonging to this great civilisation. Unlike the Abrahamic religions, Hinduism is not a proselytising or a structured religion of one book and one God. We are a process. It’s a way of life.

Robert Frykenberg, the American historian, described the Indian National Movement as also being a Hindu revivalist and modernist movement, quoting Bankim Chandra Chatterjee with his Vande Mataram, Swami Vivekananda, Swami Dayanand Saraswati, as well as Sri Aurobindo and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, who redefined Hinduism in modern terms. So cultural civilisation is only a civilisational perception — a sense of belonging and anchoring in a specific cultural and civilisational milieu.

Most have heard of Bal Gangadhar Tilak and his book, Gita Rahasya. Tilak was the first to say, “Swaraj is my birthright, and I shall have it”. He infused the spirit of political assertiveness and patriotism, both of which are extremely relevant today, in the people. To inject the spirit of nationalism and awareness among the people, he started the Ganesh festival and Shivaji Mahotsav. These were instrumental in bringing people together, irrespective of caste or creed. And I would say he was the first mass leader before Mahatma Gandhi. Many people think Gandhi is a disciple of Gopal Krishna Gokhale. I would rather say he’s a disciple of Tilak. Both Tilak and Gandhi were greatly influenced by the Bhagavad Gita. They saw it as an instrument of karma yoga, rather than just bhakti yoga.

Next, I would like to bring in the ideas of Gopal Krishna Gokhale. He said politics should be a service and not a profession. And I think it is this aspect that we have to bring in and young scholars must use these narratives, which are available in the writings of many of the Indian freedom fighters. Unfortunately, we have forgotten all these great nationalists who existed.

I’m going to the more marginalised areas — Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. There was Subramania Bharati, known as Mahakavi Bharati, to Tamil speakers for his outstanding contributions to nationalism and Tamil literature. A passionate freedom fighter, social revolutionary, mystic and visionary who was active during the late period of British rule, he spent much of his all too brief life exiled from British India, in neighbouring Pondicherry, just like Sri Aurobindo. He died suddenly in 1921. He was just 38 years old. He had little opportunity to provide for his legacy, literary or otherwise. In his writings, he talked about the intangible cultural heritage of India and the unity of this culture. The writings destroy all ambiguity. He clearly said that clarity of mind is very important and he thought that all languages and literatures of India have a single origin. Bharati was a genius. He was also ahead of his time. He also spoke about women’s liberation. Many people believe that feminism or women’s rights movements began only with Marx and ended there. The first feminists are Drapaudi and Sita. Who could be a greater feminist than Draupadi, or Sita who is the first single mother. These concepts are not invented by the West.

I’d also like to mention Subramaniya Siva, and two Telugu writers called Duggirala Gopalakrishnayya, who said the nation is not its sand and mud but its people, and Kandukuri Veeresalingam, who was like lshwar Chandra Vidyasagar, a great reformer from the south.

The great writer, Ananda K Coomaraswamy said the highlight of Indian civilisation is the dance of Lord Shiva. The temple of Chidambaram has the Nataraja avatar — the lord of dance — of Lord Shiva, or the thillai form as we call it, as do the South Indian copper images of Shri Nataraja. These images vary amongst themselves in minor details, but all express one fundamental conception — our Lord is the dancer who, like the heat latent in firewood, diffuses his power into the mind and matter and makes them dance in their turn. Cosmic activity is the central motif of the dance. Creation arises from the drum, protection proceeds from the hand of hope, and destruction comes from fire and the foot held afloat gives release. You see this legendary argument about Lord Shiva’s dance as the highlight of the Indian civilisational trait in the Cholas. The Cholas occupied the Indo Pacific regions called the Srivijaya and Suvarnabhumi. They defeated the Chinese and it is the image of Lord Shiva that was their ruling symbol.

So we ask: can India become a norm builder? When you’re a civilisational state, it is expected that we build narratives that can become norms in international relations, in all aspects of life. The way the Cholas conquered, they did not do it by genocide, rape or loot. It was more by culture, trade and commerce. If you look for an alternative paradigm, you have this. When we talk of cultural nationalism, it should help us to define certain very important identifying characteristics that we need to be a norm builder, a shared value system which includes the acceptance of international norms. Yes, we don’t believe in loot, genocide or rape; we believe in trade and commerce and culture. The existence of institutional mechanisms for the resolution of conflicts.

The British did not give us democratic values. If they had, then Myanmar, Pakistan, all countries ruled by the British should have been democracies. India is a democracy because it has a political culture, a culture that can choose from 3,000 crore gods. What more diversity would you require? We are the only country that has sustained a oasis of democracy in the Third World. India’s contribution to multiculturalism and cultural pluralism is extraordinarily important. And it is here that we also have the world-centric paradigm of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam against the state-centric paradigm. And we also believe in a nature-centric paradigm, not an anthropocentric paradigm. We believe that human beings are a part of the cosmos, where every other living and non-living thing has equal space, and a function that has been created for them. We also have the Buddhist philosophy: Lord Gautama, the Buddha, was the first dissenter and we celebrate dissent. Buddhism is a religion of the middle path. And India has always believed in the middle path and non-attachment. Adi Shankaracharya, through Advaita, brought these ideas back into Indian philosophy.

At one point, 2,000 years ago, Tamil was the lingua franca of traders across Southeast Asia. These were not Indian colonies, but proto-states that took on the Hindu apparatus of religion, and concepts of kingship to enhance their position and status. While communities of Indian traders settled in important ports along Southeast Asia, they never crossed the line into becoming colonisers. This is our civilisation, we never colonised anybody. What happened instead, was that local rulers imbibed the Indian traditions. Indian cultural nationalism is on a path that is very different from that of the anthropocentric or the Abrahamic religions. So whenever we talk of Indian civilisation, it is something that celebrates development, democracy, diversity, difference, and dissent.

Written by Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit

The writer is Vice-Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi.

Source: Indian Express, 24/05/22