On Republic Day, the Independence question

It was neither an emotional outburst nor a slip of the tongue. RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s statement that India may have won political freedom on 15 August 1947 but it became ‘truly independent’ on the day of the pran pratishtha of the new Ram Mandir in Ayodhya was a considered articulation, a reiteration of the Sangh’s fundamental position on Indian nationhood.

Characterising the ‘anti-British’ content of the freedom movement as ‘reactionary’, M.S. Golwalkar says in his Bunch of Thoughts: ‘The theories of territorial nationalism and of common danger, which formed the basis of our concept of a nation, had deprived us of the positive and inspiring content of our real Hindu Nationhood and made many of the ‘freedom movements’ virtually anti-British movements. Anti-British was equated with patriotism and nationalism. This reactionary view has had disastrous effects upon the entire course of the freedom struggle, its leaders and the common people.’

The chance to rectify ‘this reactionary view’ presented itself fully in 2014, after which the RSS has left no stone unturned to distort the content and orientation of Indian nationalism, to convert its nature from democratic to majoritarian.

The regular diatribes against the Constitution only reflect their chronic unease with the inclusive, democratic nationalism underlying the Constitution, which was the culmination of a national movement emerging out of a centuries-old tradition of critical reflection, argumentation and dialogue.

Its fountainheads were not just Indic streams but also Islamic and Christian ones. None other than Lala Lajpat Rai credited Muslims with enriching the hoary civilisation of India “with their own literature and art, evolved and developed by their own creative and versatile genius”.

The oft-repeated charge that India’s Constitution does not reflect the Indian ethos, Indian genius is, in fact, an attempt to deny the Indian genius of always seeking the ‘golden middle path’ through dialogue.

That is why a newly independent country, constituting itself into a democratic republic, took courageous steps to transform a hierarchical society into an egalitarian one, upholding the principles of equality, liberty and fraternity.

The ‘pledge’ redeemed on 15 August 1947 aimed not only at political freedom but also social and cultural rejuvenation and reconstruction. The ‘adversary’ was not simply foreign rule but also the denial of justice — social, political and economic, operating through economic inequalities, caste and gender oppression and communal prejudices.

African-American writer, sociologist, historian and rights activist W.E.B. Du Bois thought the date 15 August carried “greater significance” than the establishment of democracy in Britain, the emancipation of slaves in the United States or the Russian Revolution — the reason being that this date signified the beginning of the end of modern imperialism.

Equally significant is the courage, unprecedented in world history, that the nascent Indian republic showed in opting for universal suffrage, legal abolition of untouchability and ‘separation of powers’, all in one go. Compare this leap of faith with the fact that British women got voting rights only in 1928, centuries after the Magna Carta, or the fact that in the US, slavery was abolished nine decades after the 1776 Declaration of Independence.

All this was possible because the founding parents (most of whom came from privileged backgrounds and belonged to the majority community) were farsighted enough to realise that democracy is not just a populist game of numbers. On the contrary, it is about enlightening people in order to restructure society on the basis of a rational consensus, so that a political democracy does not remain the upper crust of an undemocratic society.

A real democracy stands opposed to majoritarianism, which is likely to lead to full-fledged authoritarianism, even fascism.

Basing itself on the politics of cultural identity, it plays havoc with the idea of citizenship, destroys institutions and casts democratic norms to the winds. All hues of cultural identity politics only strengthen majoritarianism by giving some credibility to its rhetoric of minority ‘appeasement’ and hurt sentiment.

This is exactly what is happening in India today, sadly with the active cooperation of mainstream media, which instead of encouraging rational discussion on important issues is complicit in focusing on the dissemination of stupidity and aggression. Hate speech, even murder, is being normalised and any criticism of regressive practices is projected as ‘provocation’ that might reasonably offend pious sentiment.

Corporate greed, seen in the advocacy of 70- and 90-hour workweeks, is sought to be legitimised in the name of ‘nation building’, as if the nation is some mysterious deity and not its people struggling for life, rights and dignity.

There are no piecemeal ways of warding off these threats to our democratic republic, be it resisting attempts to polarise our society or demanding caste- or gender-based representation — all this must feature in a meta-narrative of inclusive, democratic Indian nationalism, the genuine ‘idea of India’.

Views are personal. More of Purushottam Agarwal's writing may be read here.