In the intellectual arena of Bharat, since Independence, pseudo-seculars and Leftists have been enjoying dominance because of the blessings and patronage of so-called secular state-power i.e. Governments. By their grace, a big proponent of Hindutva like Swami Vivekananda has merely become an advisor of “playing football instead of chanting Geeta” and Rabindranath has no existence beyond the saying, dibe aar nibe milabe milibe i.e let’s give and take, let’s make other mingle and be mingled. However, a deep and thoughtful study of many published and unpublished (purposely) works of the poet shows that his concept of Rashtra is in stark contrast to Western thought of Nation and more surprisingly, it is nearer to the thoughts of the founder of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) Dr Hedgewar, second Sarsanghchalak Sri Guruji and numerous luminous thinkers of the organisation. The matter will be clear through the discussion below.
First of all, Rabindranath wrote in his essay Prachya o Paschatya that “the word ‘nation’ did not exist in our language, it did not exist in our country and that only recently we have learned to cherish the concept of national greatness as enumerated in European education”.
Again, in the article titled Nation within the collection named ‘Atmashakti‘, (strength of self), he discusses Renan’s interpretation of Nation. The interpretation of nation by Renan is close to our concept of ‘Rashtra‘ but not complete. It is more important that even the Western concept of ‘Nation’ is very different from the concept of Renan.
Renan has shown that it is difficult to say what the main yardsticks of a nation are. National unity, linguistic unity, unity of religion, land resources of the country, nationalism do not depend on all these. But the Western world has embraced political sovereignty as the “core element” of the nation – with Machiavelli of Italy as its forerunner.
A good example of this is John Strachey, a member of the British Council of Secretaries of State, who wrote in 1888, “The first and most essential thing to learn about India is that there is not and never was an India or even any country of India possessing, according to European ideas, any sort of unity, physical, political, social or religious. No Indian nation, no people of India of which we hear as such.”
It goes without saying that Surendranath Banerjee in A Nation in Making tried to address this question. Many of the Bharatiyas educated in Macaulay tradition, knowingly or unknowingly, hold this view.
Tagore’s Intervention
It is here that intervention of Rabindranath becomes important. The poet, in flawless language, said in his essay titled Bharatvarshiya Samaj, “The unity of this folk spirit is not achieved in the same way in all countries. Therefore, European unity and Hindu unity are not the same, but it cannot be said that there is no unity among Hindus. You may not call this unity national – because the word nation and national is not ours, its meaning is limited to the European way.”
“….. For Europe, national unity, that is, state-based (should be read as political power only) is the best; We too are ashamed to take that word from a European guru for the lack of traditional concept of Nation.
“….. Everyone is living together in spite of differences in their languages, castes, religions and customs, maintaining a great harmony is the vastness of Hindu society. Hindu civilisation has deprived itself in many ways by giving shelter to numerous diverse people, but still has not abandoned anyone ….. ”
The title of the article is ‘Bharatvarshiya Samaj’ but the words ‘Hindu’, ‘Hindu civilisation’ and ‘Hindu Samaj’ have been used repeatedly to explain Rashtra. Through this, Rabindranath has clearly taken the words ‘Bharatiya’ and ‘Hindu’ as synonyms and has practically acknowledged that the basis of Bharatiya characteristics is Hindu society, civilisation. That is to say and as he is clear in enumerating it, the main society is Hindu.
In the same article, he writes that society, unlike the West, is a greater identity in our concept of Rashtra.
“But we have to understand that in our country the society is the greatest of all, in other countries the nation (politically) has won by defending itself through various revolutions – in our country the society has protected itself in all kinds of crises for a long time through its own means.”
Rabindranath wrote in his essay Prachya o Paschatya, “Society is at the root of our Hindu civilisation, Statehood is at the root of European civilisation.”
“Hindu civilisation is not based on unity imposed by the state. Whether we are independent or subjugated, we cannot give up the hope to revive Hindu civilisation from within our society.”
He has repeatedly used the word Hindu and not the words ‘Mixed or Bharatiya’. In his essay Atmaparichoy (Self-Introduction), he says, “Muslim is a specific religion but Hindu is not a specific religion. Hinduism is the culmination of Nationhood of Bharatvarsha.”
That is to say, the Hindu civilisation referred to by him in the interpretation of Rashtra is not Hindu religion based on a narrow path of worship, rather it is the basis of a soul connection among us. A philosophy, a way of life which he has explained in detail in many other articles. But it is clear from this discussion of the poet that he saw the Rashtriya (National) entity of Bharat as Hindu which is not communal at all. Therefore, when Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh says that the Rashtriya Samaj (the society which embodies all the characteristics of Rashtra) of Bharat is Hindu; Bharat is a Hindu Rashtra, then how can it be equal to a theocratic state or papacy/caliphate? To oppose the concept of Sangh means to oppose the poet himself.
Guruji Explains Rashtra
Sri Guruji, second Sarsanghchalak of the Sangh, seemed to echo the words of the poet. The following thoughts of Shri Guruji are recorded during the meeting of the National Integration Council held on June 3, 1962, under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.
“The tenure of Bharatiya concept of Rashtra (Nation) is old. Public life is interconnected through a cultural tradition associated with the same values of life formed on the basis of a knowledge of the first principle. It had been existing since long before Christian and Islamic invaders. Many sects, communities, races are sometimes divided into many kingdoms, but their unity is inseparable. Human beings who have this integral way of life are called ‘Hindus’. That is why the Rashtriya (National) life-stream of Bharat is ‘Hindu’ life-stream.”
“Hindus in India cannot be called communal in any way. They have devotion, respect for the whole of Bharat and are always working for its betterment and glory. The values of Rashtriya (National) life-stream in Bharat are nurtured from Hindu life. Therefore, it is verily Rashtriya and never communal.”
At the end of the essay ‘Bharatvarshiya Samaj’, the poet says, “Educating society, providing health services, giving food and wealth, is our own work; this is our welfare – not to see it as a trade, not to expect anything in return but only virtue and welfare, it is Yajna, it is our connection with Brahma through Karma, remembering it regularly is Hindutva (Hinduness).”
What a surprising coincidence of thought! Shri Guruji said, “Those who work for the betterment and pride of the whole of Bharat are Hindus. The poet says that Hindutva is the acceptance of sacrifice by offering for the overall betterment of the society.”
The poet says that Hindu civilisation is not dependent on State sponsored unity because society is paramount. In other words, it’s not the unity imposed by a single regime but the unity of society is fundamental. It is the overall view of Sangh that the Rashtriya (National) unity of Bharat is purely cultural. It does not depend on political sovereignty. So in the past there were innumerable kings or small States but Bharat was culturally one. That is why we cherish the dream of an ‘Akhanda Bharat‘ (undivided Bharat). In other words, even if the rulers are different, maybe in the near future we will be culturally united. That is, State Machinery is not fundamental. Late Seshadri ji, a one-time Sarkaryavah of Sangh and eminent writer, said in his essay ‘Welcome: Debate on Hindu Rashtra’: “Hindu Rashtra is essentially cultural in content…….State is just one of those instruments, though a very vital one, created by the nation to serve its material needs. State represents the function of the body part, while the culture represents those of mind and intellect. It is to denote the whole of our national entity that the word ‘Hindu’ is used. ”
The Sangh’s point of view is that many groups of Greeks, Shakas, Hunas, Tatars and Mughals have come to Bharat as invaders. Over time most of them have merged with the original society having the Rashtriya (National) identity of Bharat or the Hindu society (in the words of the poet). But, for whatever reason, the Muslims did not mingle into the original stream of Hindu society. That is not the subject matter of this article. Even though the Muslims of Indonesia converted from Hindus to Muslims, they did not lose their devotion and respect for Sri Ram or Ramayan. Yet most of the Muslim community in Bharat has found it difficult to do so. As the path of worship became different, they also felt distant from the Hindu culture, the Hindu way of life, which eventually led to the Partition of the country. In other words, many Muslims have not been able to unite with the ‘cultural patriotism’ that the Sangh speaks of, which is far above the way of worship or the State mechanism.
Here, too, is the relevance of Rabindranath. In his essay Atmaparichoy (Self-Introduction), the reflection of Sangh’s view is as clear as daylight, “I have been born in a Hindu society and accepted the Brahmo religion – if I wish I can go to another religion but how can I go to another society? The history of that society is not mine. The fruits of a tree can go from one basket to another but how can it go from one branch to another for fruition?”
“The word Hindu and the word Muslim do not mean the same level of identity.” Muslim is a specific religion but Hindu is not a specific religion. Hinduism is the culmination of Nationhood of Bharatvarsha.”
The late Sudarshanji, the fifth Sarsanghchalak, in his essay ‘Why Hindu Rashtra?’ gave the example of the Archbishop of Ernakulam, Joseph Cardinal Parecattil, whose statement was published in The Indian Express on December 5, 1986, “Church had to draw its cultural nourishment from the local soil – the rich resources of Hinduism.” Himself an ardent advocate of ‘Indianisation of Church’, the Archbishop affirms that all Bharatiyas including Christians and Muslims should imbibe this national culture of the soil.”
This positive proposition and effort of the Sangh seems to be a reflection of the poet’s hopes and aspirations when he says in his essay ‘Swadeshi Samaj’ – Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Christians will not die fighting each other in the case of Bharat – here they will find harmony. That harmony will not be non-Hindu, it will be uniquely Hindu. Though His limbs are foreign, His life, His soul is of Bharat.”
“That harmony will not be non-Hindu, it will be uniquely Hindu” – if these be the words of the Kaviguru then the pseudo-secular and Leftist intellectuals before calling Sangh and Sanghpradhan communal, fascist and hegemonic, must use these same chosen adjectives for Rabindranath! Let the readers judge.
Comments