Before the advent of British power in India, political nationalism was unknown to the people who lived under a feudalistic economy in small independent States, and who were sharply divided by caste, religion and race. The Great Revolt of 1857 was a war of liberation in the sense that it was directed against the foreign rulers, but it was not inspired by the ideal of a united nation with a central government, common administration and common laws. This idea was cherished by the new Western-educated middle class—the class of lawyers, teachers, doctors, journalists and traders.
Originally, this ideal did not have any anti-British bias. The new middle class wanted British assistance to modernise the country and train the people in the art of self government, but as the nationalist movement gained momentum and the British bureaucracy turned hostile to national aspirations, political nationalism became sharply critical of alien rule.
The British unified the country and, thus, indirectly contributed to the strengthening of the national sentiment, but they always tried to stifle the nationalist movement by the policy of divide and rule, by bolstering up the feudal structure, by encouraging the notoriously corrupt Princely order to insist on an independent status for itself, and by terrible repression.
When the country achieved independence, the leaders were immediately faced with a stupendous task, that of modernising the economy and developing the resources to ensure economic maturity, and of welding the people into a nation.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
National integration seemed to have been accomplished when the people were struggling to overthrow alien despotism, but when the compulsions of liquidating imperialism had ended, the old fissures in the social order reappeared.
A British statesman once said that England consisted of two nations— the rich and the poor. In India also the rich and the poor are divided by a wide gulf, but there is another gulf much wider the gulf between the western-educated class brought up on liberalism of Western Europe and the USA, and the illiterate masses steeped in the old ways of life in fatalism, superstition and caste prejudices.
Can the governing class transform the masses and make them rational, secular, politically conscious and nationalistic?
History furnishes no example of transformation on such a big scale through democratic means. Modernisation, of ancient societies has hitherto been achieved on a comparatively limited scale through despotism. In a sense, democracy is not helpful in ensuring this modernisation because politicians, instead of educating the masses on the need for a radical change in outlook, pander to their prejudices and appeal to their caste, communal and other parochial loyalties to gain votes.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
If national integration still awaits accomplishment, the responsibility lies with the middle class leaders, who betray their convictions to satisfy their lust for power. This is not an argument for instituting any kind of despotic authority, because force cannot remove deep-seated prejudices and inhibitions, and the battle for nationalism has to be successfully waged in the minds of men. This is only a plea for recognition by the educated classes of their historic mission as agents of social change.
It is manifestly an exaggeration to say that the British created communal consciousness in this country. They did not create it, but only accentuated it. The Hindus and the Muslims lived in peaceful coexistence before British rule. Had the British not encouraged separatist tendencies among the Muslims, and introduced communalism in politics and education, the history of this country might have been different.
Communal consciousness rapidly developed when political power began to be progressively transferred to the people. It became so intense that partition became inevitable. The legacy of the British rule still persists. It was hoped that, with the establishment of Pakistan, the communal situation would improve and the national sentiment would be strengthened. This hope was unfortunately proved illusory.
Communal riots are still taking place in different parts of the country. The persistence of communalism may be attributed to a number of factors. The most important among these factors is the feeling of veiled hostility between the two communities which the alien rulers had created as part of their divide and rule policy, and which politicians had exploited before the partition for their own ends.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
This feeling of veiled hostility, not noticeable in normal times, bursts into a riot, sometimes on the most trivial provocation, and both sides commit most shameful atrocities. Some politicians belonging to the majority community profoundly distrust large sections of the Muslim community and accuse them of extra-territorial loyalties. There is no foundation for this distrust and accusation, but it lingers in the mind of a section of the majority community.
So long as religious fanaticism persists and communal riots are occurring, we can lay no claim to be a national community. This country has rightly rejected the two-nation theory and proclaimed its faith in secular principles. This faith must be vindicated. All attempts to spread hatred between the two communities must be sternly dealt with.
Direct responsibility must be fixed for maintaining communal peace. Democratic parties should have nothing to do with communal groups. If communal parties are admitted into coalitions, communalism acquires some prestige. The nation can never be strong if people continue to think in communal terms.
In a vast country like India, where the people speak different languages and have different social and economic problems, federalism provides an excellent means of reconciling national unity with regional diversity. National unity is not impaired if the people of a region have a genuine pride in their language and culture. But regionalism develops into a serious threat to national unity if politicians do not go beyond their regional loyalty and claim to stand only for their regional interests.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
A central cabinet in which ministers regard themselves as representatives of their States can hardly pursue national policies. No politician can afford to cut himself off from his home State, but at the Centre we need ministers who have an all-India stature. The paramount need of the country is that all attention should be concentrated on developing material resources, to ensure to every citizen at least the primary conditions of good life, and on organising our defences.
Different interpretations have been offered regarding the origin of the caste system and its functions in ancient times. There can, however, be no two opinions regarding the caste system in contemporary India. It is undemocratic, incompatible with our aspirations and inhuman.
The Constitution guarantees every citizen protection against discrimination based on caste or race. It has abolished untouchability, the practice of which is now a serious legal offence. Yet, untouchability has not disappeared. The entry of members of the scheduled castes into certain temples and other such symbolic moves do not alter the fact that they are still being treated as before, and that they are still terribly suffering, both economically and socially, because the higher castes are continuing as before to exploit them and to treat them most shabbily.
National integration will remain merely a pious hope if millions of persons continue to be subjected to such shameful exploitation and humiliation. All kinds of divisions between man and man are indefensible, but those based on birth are worse than those based on other considerations.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Caste distinctions are gradually losing their importance in towns, but in villages they still persist, particularly in matters of marriage, dining and other forms of social intercourse, creating various kinds of antagonisms, tensions and ill-will. Indian nationalism must fight the pernicious caste system tooth and nail if it is to be a vital force in our public life.
The sense of unity in a community depends upon a number of factors, one of which is common language. To be sure, there are countries where national unity prevails despite the existence of various languages, but in most countries the people speak one language.
The British imposed English on the people, both as the official language and as the medium of instruction at the university stage. In free India, English can no longer retain its primacy, for the simple reason that it is spoken only by a small minority of the people and is a foreign language. The Constitution explicitly recognises Hindi as the official language of the Union—a language which is understood by the majority of the people and has very close affinities with a large number of regional languages. Yet, opposition to the adoption of Hindi as the official language of the Union is so strong, and insistence in certain parts of the country on retaining English is so emphatic, that it has been thought to be prudent not to take any hasty step in this matter.
The three-language formula admirably serves all ends. English is the language for international communication, Hindi for the official use of the Union, and the regional language for the administration of the State and as the medium of instruction at the University level. English as the official language of the Union can only be a passing phase.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The period of transition may be extended so that non-Hindi- speaking people may not be seriously inconvenienced, but the people living in different parts of the country will be truly united only when they can freely talk to one another in a common language.
Linguistic fanaticism is as reprehensible as religious fanaticism. If those who insist on the immediate adoption of Hindi as the Union’s official language are condemned as Hindi imperialists, those who say that they cannot visualise a time even in the distant future when Hindi will be accepted as the link language are no less irresponsible and intransigent. A nation which has no language of its own, and which conducts its affairs in an alien language, is no nation. It can never achieve national integration, except in a superficial way.
In a country where there are huge inequalities in the distribution of national income and wealth, and where, while the rich live a life of ostentation and indulge in conspicuous consumption, the poor are denied even the elementary conditions of civilised existence, we have two nations, each with a separate culture and way of life. There is nothing common between a multi-millionaire and an unemployed young man or an agricultural labourer or a petty cultivator or artisan, except perhaps the colour of their skins. How can they have a sense of unity or fellow-feeling?
In times of war they may respond to the call of patriotism and for the time being forget their differences, but in normal times they will always remain class-conscious and think in terms of “we” and “they”. Politicians may wax eloquent over the dangers of class antagonism, and may plead passionately for a united front to promote the common good, but unless all sections of the people are assured of social justice and equality of opportunity, the sense of oneness which constitutes the essence of nationalism will not come.
How is national integration to be accomplished? One view is that the federal part of the Constitution should be scrapped and the unitary system of government should be established. Federalism, it is argued, encourages fissiparous tendencies and makes the people more loyal to their region, than to the nation. This view is clearly mistaken.
Our Constitution has a strong unitary bias. The Central government will be strong, not by virtue of the legal powers invested in it, but by virtue of the support it enjoys in the Parliament. No government, whether under a unitary or federal system, can be strong unless it is backed in the Parliament by a majority.
More than a new Constitution, we need a new approach to problems. Political parties have a significant role to play in shaping the national outlook. They must train people to think in national terms. The lust for power, which drives politicians to exploiting parochial passions and backing regional demands, must be controlled.
Fissiparous tendencies cannot be checked by force and the compulsions of the law. They have to be eradicated by persuasion and education. The battle for national unity is to be waged in the minds of people. All media of mass communication must be utilised for a drive for promoting national unity.
Why old universities should be allowed to keep their communal appellations is hard to understand. Educational institutions should be compelled to renounce their communal character. The government should never yield to regional pressures, particularly when they take the form of violence and intimidation. Hitherto, firmness has been generally lacking.
Our educational system must be reconstructed to emphasise the composite nature of our culture, and to instill in the minds of the youth legitimate pride in our social heritage. The emphasis in our educational system is more on the study of Western thought and culture, with the result that our students cannot claim extensive knowledge of their philosophy, their religion, their social organisation and their culture.
Our intellectuals, consequently, suffer from an inferiority complex. Comparisons are, of course, always invidious, but it is beyond dispute that ancient Indians revealed remarkable gifts in every direction and created a civilisation and culture which compares favourably with other civilisations and cultures. This point needs to be repeatedly stressed.
Our history books, especially history books written by foreigners, give only a partial and distorted account of our past. They are stories of military conquests, foreign invasions, political quarrels and religious fanaticisms. They do not sufficiently bring out our cultural achievements, the interaction of various cultures upon one another to produce a remarkable synthesis, and the contribution which the various people have made to the country’s composite culture.
One disastrous effect of foreign rule was the cultural denudation of the educated youth. India’s educated classes have become completely westernised in their ways of life, in their dress and fashions, in their love of luxuries, in their love of excitement and sensation, in their loss of faith in spiritual values. They are a feeble copy of their western counterparts. They are like foreigners in their own land. They have not assimilated the wisdom of the West. They have become imitators of the superficial aspects of its life, of its fashions and manners, of its amusements and pleasures.
India presents many glaring contrasts—between the rich and the poor, between the high caste Hindus and the scheduled castes and tribes, between community and community, but no contrast is more glaring than that presented by the Western oriented educated elite and the teeming millions in villages.
National integration depends upon the progressive reduction of these contrasts, and the indianisation of the educated classes. As leaders of society they must lead the people, but their leadership cannot be effective if they do not identify themselves with the masses, and do not share their social and cultural ways. National integration depends on eliminating parochial loyalties, establishing social justice and reconstructing the educational system to give it a truly national bias.