HVK Archives: A nation in search of its lost greatness
A nation in search of its lost greatness - The Observer
Ram Swarup
()
1 July 1997
Title: A nation in search of its lost greatness
Author: Ram Swarup
Publication: The Observer
Date: July 1, 1997
(Indian Marxists saw no good in their own people and wanted their
transformation in the Western image)
India is celebrating fifty years of its Independence. During these years,
it was often ruled by people who brought it little credit. Currently, it
is under a government composed of parties some of which had opposed this
struggle and which still remain opposed to its deeper ideation.
Indian freedom struggle began on a modest note. The Indian National
Congress was born in a particular political and ideological environment. At
this time, European domination, cultural and political, was complete.
Nations and individuals have often faced adversity with courage, but they
have found it more difficult to cope with prosperity without illusion.
Europe felt that its power and position were natural and were to last
forever. With some exceptions, most Europeans took it for granted that
they were superior and the rest inferior. Christianity had already
prepared it for this attitude. It had taught them to see no good in their
pagan neighbours. European rulers keenly felt the "white-man's burden" of
civilising the world.
At this time, Europe's superiority was taken for granted by the ruled as
well. The majority of India's educated and articulate class paid
allegiance to Western ideals, and wanted to bring their own beliefs and
customs which they had learnt secretly.
At this stage, freedom of the country, if, it was thought of at all, was a
distant goal. The preamble to Gokhale's Servants of India Society states
that its members "frankly accept the British connection as ordained, in the
inscrutable dispensation of Providence, for India's good." Even
"self-government within the Empire" was a goal which could not "be attained
without years of earnest and patient effort and sacrifices worthy of the
cause."
Things, however, took a different turn. An ancient nation was waking up.
The old assumptions began to be questioned. Great cultural thinkers who
were also great sadhakas arose and spoke of their cultural heritage, about
the Vedas, about sanatana dharma with pride. They also gave Western
culture a closer look and found it wanting in deeper matters. Sri
Aurobindo wrote: "We reject the claim of aliens to force upon us a
civilisation inferior to our own or to keep us out of our inheritance on
the untenable ground of a superior fitness.
As soon as he old assumptions were questioned, the existing applecart was
upset. Old politics became outdated. The new spokesmen taught us to look at
the country and its Independence struggle in a particular way. They taught
that India was more than a geographical entity, that it was a holy land, a
sacred trust, a spiritual idea, a power of the spirit, even a deity: they
taught that India was rising for the truth it embodied, for recovering its
svabhava.
These words and thoughts galvanised the whole nation. They gave deeper
ideation to the Independence struggle and a deeper definition of India. It
gave a new focus to Indian politics and set up new tasks, new goals.
A Hindu renaissance began and things were never the same again.
However, this was only the beginning. Much of the struggle still lay
ahead. Forces of Hindu awakening were not the only ones in the field.
There were powerful opposed currents. There was the old, unsolved Muslim
problem, or rather the problem of Islam or Islamic ideology which had its
own ambition and wanted to revive its old domination.
The twin ideas of European superiority and our inferiority had taken deep
roots and were not easy to shake. One can see them behind the present
categories of developed and underdeveloped or developing nations.
In fact, this old mindset could not be accepted in its old form and idiom
much too had happened meanwhile. But it acquired a new hold and power when
it came to us in the Marxist garb. Marx had preached Euro-centricity woven
into a complete theory of history and had couched it in radical and
anti-colonial language. He did not speak, as many of his contemporaries
did, of a superior race and inferior people, nor of any heavenly mandate of
converting unbelievers. But he taught that Asia and Africa were primitive
and outdated and already written off by history and the future belonged to
Europe.
Marxism proved a powerful attraction. It found followers in all the
countries of the East. It attracted the intelligentsia it seemed to
explain everything, to account for everything.
It satisfied many temperaments and emotions. It satisfied the rebel, the
iconoclast, the visionary in us: it even satisfied man's religious emotion
- history replacing old-fashioned God.
It attracted many young men: they felt they were participating in a
long-drawn struggle taking place on a world scale and stage. It was an
exciting role. It also justified their self-alienation.
Marxism was also not without its own kind of idealism. That it turned into
a great tyranny of the age is. another matter. It only shows that idealism
as we understand the word today is not enough, that when it denies man's
other qualities of mind and heart, it itself becomes a falsity.
Marxism drew many of its followers from the self-alienated class. They
admired the West as a matter of course. In more dogmatic cases, they had
also learnt to hold their own people in contempt - in fact, sometimes their
contempt for their own country was even greater than their admiration for
the West. They saw no good in their country and people and wanted their
transformation in the western image.
The situation was not peculiar to India. It obtained in all countries
which had lived under similar physical and psychological pressures. When
Europe retreated, this class, though a minority, was disproportionately
influential. They became the new rulers.
India was lucky. It was spared the ghastly events of China and Cambodia,
but the ideological damage was quite as great. In the new thought,
patriotism, if not exactly a dirty word, occupied no high place. It became
a fashion to subscribe to the Soviet cult and to sponsor Arab causes.
League politics came into its own again. Hinduism - India's definition at
its deepest and the principle of its self-renewal, self-identity and its
civilisation role - came in for special attack.
Words lost their meanings. There was a new, scramble for power: every
political party tried to appear better than it was. There was a new
snobbishness about being a backward or a Dalit.
The old Hindu awakening was based on great ideas: the neo-Hindutva
distrusts ideas. The early teachers of Hindu awakening first discovered
India and Hinduism within themselves: neo-Hinduism feels no such needs. Can
India and Hinduism be served without a great vision, great self-churning?
Back
Top
|
