Nationalism and Tagore.
As politics takes twist and turn, turning left or right across the globe, the idea of Nationalism remains an issue of debate, especially in a multicultural country like India, a country where racial and religious infighting is rooted. The idea of Nation and Nationalism has always remained a controversial one. It has been critiqued by several theories and political thinkers. Nation means the native land inhabited by the people of native race, practicing the native culture(religion). Nationalism is identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. For the polymath Rabindranath Tagore, both the idea of nation and nationalism was unacceptable. He denounced them and launched his revolt against these institutions in his works. For Tagore these institutions shatter humanity and are selfish and downgraded. When India was struggling to achieve her freedom from the colonizers, for many people Nationalism, Patriotism and Anti-imperialism were the single concept. Tagore broke away from Nationalism and stood for patriotism. Tagore paved a new way of being a patriot by performing the act of humanity. In his book entitled Nationalism(Orginally in form of speech) , Tagore wrote, "India has never had a real sense of nationalism. Even though from childhood I had been taught that idolatry of the Nation is almost better than reverence for God and Humanity, I believe I have outgrown that teaching, and it is my conviction that my countrymen will truly gain their India by fighting against the education which teaches them that a country is greater than the ideals of humanity." Tagore stood for humanity, he was against the tradition that divided men, he was against the unethical brand of violent Nationalism. He was against the idea of a monocultural nation, he believed in the synthesis of the best of all cultures.
For different people the idea of nationalism differs.
In the nineteenth century, the hindu revivalist- nationalists rose and they created the love for India, the Indian Patriotism in the commitment to Hindu traditions and institutions. They were of the view that colonizations made the ancient Indian institutions and traditions weak, and was polluting the institution of family, caste, widowhood discipline, and religious beliefs. They sought the loyalty and support of Hindus, to show their patriotism by devoting themselves to Hinduism. They wanted a monocultural India, and thus their approach towards decolonization was narrow. Inspired by the 18th century sanyasi rebellion, Bankim Chandra Chattopadhya wrote the novel "Anandamath" in 1882. This novel paved a strong path for Nationalism by creating the image of Bharat Mata, who seeks the loyalty of Hindus of the land and shows their patriotism for their nation in the form of violence against Muslims, because it is them who are the enemy of India, not the Britishers.
Rabindranath Tagore was deeply involved in the Swadeshi Movement. He too was influenced by hindu revivalist nationalists. However later on when the movement turned aggressive Tagore withdrew from it and with course of time, a change took place in his views. He denounced Nationalism. According to Tagore, the diversity of India is a result of it's hospitality towards the alien culture. Tagore believed in the mantra of Upanishad, Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam( The world is one family). Tagore was against everything that divided men, and stood for unity in diversity. He was not a nationalist but an internationalist. Tagore created a new way of patriotism. He replaced the division of religion and caste by a higher model of humanity.
-Rifat Siddiqui
Nationalism has blinded all of India today. As for the Hindutva goons, they have been blinded by the idea itself, and the blind goons have blinded the children of Kashmir for the idea. Kashmir is a nation. Ethnically, culturally, historically. What is India? Ethnic? Surely not, with the Aryan-Dravidian divide coming in between in the first place. Cultural? Again, not, because even when the Hindu religions dominated India, the differences between the religions and sects were wide apart, and so were their cultures, which have diverged even more with the passing years. Historical? Surely India has been mentioned in history, as the lands around and beyond the Indus, but does that make a nation? In that sense, even the Arabian Peninsula ought to be a single nation. Never has this land called "Bharat Mata" ever unite, not will it ever. Freedom to the many people who live in it. Freedom to Kashmir, to Punjab, to Northeast, to South "India" and to every other people who demand freedom. Kashmir had been a nation, and a nation surely not Hindu since the beginning, for the oldest religious imagery found has been Buddhist, and through the Rājatarangini, we get to know many instances of militant Hinduism destroying Buddhist structures. These lands, are Dardic and Indo-Aryan, and from the Indo-Aryans, the Northwestern Indo-Aryans, who are among the Indo-Aryans, most related to Dardic people. The languages of Dras, Kargil, Gurez, Gilgit and Kashmir are too similar. Even the Hinduism of Kashmir, the Kashmiri Shaivism, is too different from the Hinduism of India. As for Islam, even it, is much altered compared to the Sunni Orthodox form. Ladakh was once largely inhabited by Dards, and politically, is fully reliant on Kashmir (even after the bifurcation). The cultures of the Northern Areas are too similar to the Kashmiri ones, as can be seen in architecture, crockery, and traditional clothing. Historically, these lands have been one, under Lalitaditya, Sultan Sikandar, Sultan Zain-ul-Ābidīn as well as the Dogras, under whom, even Chitral was once under Kashmiri suzerainty. Today, the very traitors of the idea of United India, are promoting it, the descendants of the same Savarkar, who said Hindus and Muslims are separate Nations. India ought to break up.
ReplyDelete