Building up the nation: mend those fissures

By

 
Randeep Wadehra & Amar Nath Wadehra

The Republic of India is a majestic, beautiful edifice with strong foundations of liberal democratic values. However, lately it has developed some fissures that need to be attended to urgently lest it becomes too late.

National integration is a perennial process that demands a sustained supply of material, emotional and spiritual inputs. It involves mutual understanding and a continuous dialogue among the various segments of the polity. It is a prerequisite for nation building. At the material level all citizens should not only be avowedly equal in the eyes of the law, but should actually be treated as such. Be it the assurance of a better quality of life or opportunities for the redress of grievances – there should be no discrimination. At the emotional level we should be able to empathize with our less fortunate compatriots, or with those feeling alienated. At the spiritual level there should be an understanding of subcultural dynamics an understanding of the needs and aspirations of diverse ethno-religious groups in our society. The enumeration is by no means exhaustive.

The concept of national integration in the Indian context began to evolve with the onset of British Rule. Before the arrival of the British all those who came to the Indian subcontinent blended into the multihued cultural mosaic. Those were the times when India held the same attraction for foreigners as the West, especially the USA, holds for today’s Indians. People came to study in our universities, to do business, and generally in search of a better quality of life. Greeks, or rather Macedonians, came with Alexander to conquer India. After Alexander’s return quite a number of them stayed back with Seleucus. Gradually their ethnic identity submerged with that of local tribes. Similarly, tribes from Africa, Central Asia, the Far East and West Asia too came and settled down here.

Jews often acknowledge that India was the only country where they were never persecuted. Not many know that Christianity came to India much earlier than it reached Europe. The first converts, according to the legend, were Kerala’s Namboodiri Brahmins in 4 century AD. Then Muslims arrived. Though they became the ruling class and replaced many of our traditional institutions with their own, they too eventually became a part of the rich Indian cultural mosaic. Unable to fit into the traditional caste system they maintained a distinct selfdom though.

At no stage, however, did the locals feel the need for forging a national identity that would become a protective shield against alien influences. With the British came the concept of nationhood. Indians, exposed to the Western education and thought processes, slowly began to realize the importance of national unity – politically speaking. Leaders like Tilak, Gokhale and Mahatma Gandhi helped transform national integration into a viable idea. If Gandhiji was the father of Indian nation and Nehru its uncle or chacha, Sardar Patel was the surgeon who helped in its ultimate birth. This is not to belittle the respective roles of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh and countless other patriots. Mercifully we had visionaries in those days who gave us a constitution that has withstood the test of the time.

Two words are not found in our ancient literature, viz., India and Hindu. Yet we have come to adopt these words despite the fact that these denote disrespect for our true identity. India is part of our heritage from the British rule while the term Hindu in Arabic means a thief or a robber. This term was used for people living on the banks of Indus who perhaps thrived on looting caravans of traders plying between the subcontinent and Persia as well as further west – Arabia. The British historian John Keay is right when he says that the term Bharat is more apt for our country. And Hindus could go back to the original Arya Dharma – a term used for a way of life rather than for any ethnic group. If this is not acceptable then perhaps Bharati will be a much better name for what is today described as the Hindu way of life.

Once Samuel Johnson, a British lexicographer in the eighteenth century, had remarked, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel”. Years later in the early years of the twentieth century Melvyn Bragg, another

1 2 3 >>

 kale gore ka bhed jahan ve rang bhed kahlate hain,par ek rang ke bharat mein ye bhed kahan se aate hain? a matter of research for the scholars.apartheid may vanish some day but would the casteism of hindus meet same fate ?

deshrajlatotra | March 25, 2010