The recent events in Hyderabad and Jawaharlal Nehru universities and the actions of some “nationalists”, took me back to the 1940s and 1950s and question the nationalism I grew up with. I was eight years old at independence but even at that age I was exposed to the thinking of the freedom movement, because my father was one of its small time members. He would tell us about the country that the freedom fighters aspired for. He practised in the handloom establishment which he owned. His task was to cyclostyle the Kannada news bulletin of the movement. He could do it in his office without getting caught because the noise of the handlooms drowned the noise of the cyclostyling machine. More importantly, there were thirty handloom workers in his enterprise, Christians, Hindus and Muslims. But none of them betrayed him, so he never went to jail because the workers viewed India’s freedom as their joint enterprise. Their longing for free India united their group divided by religion and caste. We were exposed to that nationalism at independence and lived it in our neighbourhood of Christians and Hindus of different castes. That represented a country with religious, cultural, linguistic and other diversities in which all communities are equal.
When I see the fundamentalists of today proclaiming their version of nationalism, I wonder whether the pluralism for which our forefathers fought has disappeared. My first encounter with the predecessors of today’s Desh Bakths was on January 31, 1948 when some of them went round distributing sweets to celebrate Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination the previous day.
Like those who celebrate Godse today, they too did not want the diversity that Gandhi and the freedom fighters stood for. One has, therefore, to ask whether the Hindu Rashtra that the rightist forces would like to build will allow diversity. Or is it to be exclusive like Hitler’s Germany? I was just six when the world war ended so I did not know much about Hitler but I studied about him at school.
And I ask myself whether I am imagining what look like parallels between his Nazism and what the rightist forces propagate in my country today. Is their nationalist exclusive and the opposite of the inclusive nationalism amid unity in diversity that independent India stood for? Hitler’s exclusive Nazism was founded on a Germany that belonged only to the Aryan race which he defined as blonde and tall though he himself was short and somewhat on the darker side.
Those who did not belong to his pure race, for example Jews and gypsies, and others like trade unionists and Communists who disagreed with him, were jailed or sent to the gas chambers. The difference with the “nationalists” of today’s India is that they are ready to tolerate Muslims, Christians, Dalits, Tribals and Women in their Bharat, as long as they accept to be subordinate second class citizens under the “owners” of the country.
My first encounter with the predecessors of today’s Desh Bakths was on January 31, 1948 when some of them went round distributing sweets to celebrate Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination the previous day.
The events of the last few days and weeks make me wonder whether there is a second similarity. Hitler and his propagandist Himmler created an army of hooligans to attack their opponents.
They would first create myths showing their opponents in a bad light as anti-national and then attack them. One sees it happening in our country too. Those who shout slogans or write what the “nationalists” do not like are called traitors. Some of them like Pansare and Kalburgi have been eliminated, a few others like Prof. Kancha Illaiah, Dr Sandeep Pandey and Dr Sai Baha have been ostracised after accusing them of being Naxalites or anti-national.
Many others, for example the teachers and students of JNU and journalists who were covering their case, have been beaten up by lawyers and law makers. The freedom fighters stood for a different type of nationalism. The instructions of Gandhi to his followers were to exhibit their nationalism in the service of the poor.
That is what I witnessed in my childhood in persons like our neighbour homeopathic doctor Shastri (cricketer Ravi Shastri’s grandfather). He was the ward Congress president but he gave up politics and spent his life serving the poor particularly children in whose medicines he specialised.
The spirit of nationalism was thus shared in service, not imposed through violence and today’s “nationalists” seem to think that they should do. The police look the other way when they beat up their opponents even in a court of law as it happened in the premises of Patiala House.
The Nazis came to power by using the democratic system. Once in power they used the army of hooligans to destroy its institutions. One sees a similar process in India today.
It is difficult to believe that the police can behave the way they did without instructions from those who control their department. The “nationalists” first created a myth that anti-national slogans were raised by the students of JNU and then beat up the “traitors”. The police arrested some students for sedition despite a Supreme Court judgement that slogans do not constitute sedition and that only a call for violence does.
That call has come from the “nationalists” some of whom have gone on record that they are ready to repeat their violent acts and even shoot some traitors. All that the police have done is to issue arrest warrants against some lawyers. They have not been arrested though they are highly visible and are staging demonstrations. They arrested an MLA, gave him tea and snacks and let him off after fifteen minutes. But some of those whom the “nationalists” accuse of being traitors are in jail or are under threat of being arrested because they made statements that the self-styled protectors of Bharat dislike.
Thirdly the Nazis came to power by using the democratic system. Once in power they used the army of hooligans to destroy its institutions. One sees a similar process in India today.
Dissent that is a basic feature of a democracy is considered sedition. People are beaten up inside the court premises thus preventing the judiciary from doing their duty. Their position of power is used to take control of the educational and research institutions because all thinking has to support their concept of nationalism.
Universities that encourage students and teachers to think for themselves become subversive. A democratic principle is that dissent has to be tolerated even when it goes beyond what moderate elements may consider unacceptable as long as it does not preach or encourage violence. But today’s “nationalists” invent sedition in all forms of dissent of questioning of established positions. Violence takes the place of debate and lawlessness overtakes law abiding citizens.
These developments should challenge people who love the country to come together and reflect on the type of India they want. India has the option of behaving as a civilised nation that encourages debate, dissent and creative thinking or join the banana republics in which creative thinking is sedition.
(The author is a former founder-director of North Eastern Social Research Centre, Guwahati is at present senior fellow in the same institution; this article also appeared in the Shillong Times)