The Idea(s) of India

India is ‘the’ most diverse country in the world. Nowhere in the world will you find 22 officially recognized languages, a home to three major religions of the world, and a cultural diversity that keeps changing every 100kms! So it’s natural to say there can’t be a 'one' single idea of India that perpetuates among the people of India. In this piece I’ll try to list out some of the dominant ideas that prevail in India. And in doing so will try to highlight the complexity that is India.

The India of the Constitution

First, there is an idea of India in our constitution. It sets out goals or objectives in front of the nation to follow and achieve. When it was set in place in 1950, the Constituent assembly - after years of rigorous debates – set in front of the people of India and it’s future generations to not only emulate those ideals enshrined in the constitution but also to make India a country worth following example of. The ideals of Liberty, equality, justice, fraternity, secularism, socialism, democracy et al mentioned in the preamble are values which are central to this ‘idea’ of India. It’s a very legalistic and objective notion and focuses on what India ‘ought’ to be in the long run. The constitution itself has been considered by many scholars a social document, a set of objectives that the leaders of that time had set in front of the people of India to lead India to an overall transformation.

Nehruvian India

One of key architects – quite literally – of modern India was Nehru. In one of his major work,‘The Discovery of India’, he not only discovered India for himself but he constructed an Idea of India that forms the base of what India is today. By focusing on tremendous diversity and highlighting the inherent ‘unity’ in such diversity lays the Nehruvian idea of India. Nehruvian India is a multicultural, a highly diverse,  having a rich cultural and social history that has caught the eye many foreigners from abroad. Secularism is another foci of Nehruvian India and he put this into practice when he was as the helm. He also envisioned an India which was a Modern nation, and with Independence it would unleash unrelenting growth to achieve it’s predestined greatness. Nehru saw the Modern India living in the cities as he saw the rural India as a reminder of the backwardness of India. He wanted  India to become a fully industrialized nation which will usher a new era in Indian history. His idea of India still shapes our destiny and various public policies.

Gandhian India

Another contrasting idea of India was of Gandhi. For him, India lived in it’s villages as he considered the village as the base unit of the nation. He dreamed of an India in which there was absolute autonomy for the villages to conduct their affairs with the dignity and respect that they deserved. His idea of India did not include industries or modernisation as he was completely against modernity as such. Gandhian India is still alive in the current atmosphere. Legally and constitutionally, India adopted the three tier system of governance that is the ‘Panchayati-Raj Institutions’ with the passing of the 73^rd and the 74^th constitutional amendment in 1993. And even though with the rise in urbanisation process,  about 70% of Indians still live in rural areas or villages (Census 2011). That is a staggering figure which is a proof enough to acknowledge that there never can be one notion of India or ‘Indianness’. The rural people have different aspirations and different ideas of India. For them democracy is just a fancy word that politicians use once in 5 years or rights are just ideals that the rich or the ‘enlightened’ enjoy. Their idea of India is still in the Gandhian era, waiting for ‘swaraj’ and recognition of their freedom.

The Hindu-Nationalist India

Another major discourse around the idea of India is the Hindu-nationalist-right wing-majoritarian idea of India. It’s basic premise is that India is primarily a Hindu nation as Hindus are in majority. It traces its roots to a nearly mythical 'India' which transcends time and space,which is the notion of ‘Akhand Bharat' or ‘Undivided India’.  One of the main proponents of this Idea was Savarkar who talked about Hindutva and gave the famous quote ‘One nation, one race and one culture or civilisation’. This greatly undermines and contradicts the Nehruvian idea of India of secularism and diversity in India. This idea of India has been quite controversial and has been considered by many scholars as a dividing agenda used by the Hindu-Nationalist parties and groups to communalise politics in India. Whatever may be the case, this idea of India is deeply entrenched and many have faith in this notion of India which believes in achieving a cultural and religious uniformity in India at the cost of basic human rights.

The ‘Capitalist’ India

Although the capitalist class in India existed prior to the economic reforms of 1991, their idea of India is now beginning to surface out in the open for all to see. The capitalistic idea of India is of neo-liberal growth, meaning the Indian state giving the corporate class a relatively free hand in handling the economy of India, which will result in profit making and overall economic growth. Their idea of India is a highly privatised India with the state taking a backseat and rolling back most of the social securities provided by it. They also want an India which is fully ‘urbanized’ and all the people are engaged in adding to the economy. They don’t care about culture or values. They only care about growing GDP rates and higher economic growths. They want unbridled growth as they feel this alone will lead to the overall betterment of the whole Indian society.

The ‘Middle’ class India

The newly emerging middle class of India has a different idea of India. It has different aspirations. This class dream of an India where there are abundant opportunities for everyone. They want a certain lifestyle which caters to their wants. They also believe in a just India which grants all citizens the same rights and liberties given in the constitutions. They are not attached to the primordial identities of other 'Indias' like religion or caste. Their idea of India is completely secular and righteous. Their main focus is on jobs and development of India so that India can outperform other nations in the world. For them good education and a good vibrant economy are the keys to achieving that. Their India is not a place stuck in the past but is looking forward to the future.

The clash of Ideas of India

After giving  a very brief overview of many Ideas of India, I’ll come back to the title again and say there is no one ‘Idea’ of India. There are of course various ideas of India but we can see even after a cursory understanding of this notion, we realise that all these ideas are in conflict with each other as all have different versions of India in their mind. But what is common to all is the desire to give shape to a coherent nation that is India. All of these ideas are important in shaping what India actually is. India is a highly diverse, multi-cultural, multi-national entity that is far superior and vast to these ideas. What India actually is just a work in progress and while these various ideas of India have helped shape India’s past, we the present generation can only formulate new ideas of India to shape it’s future.

Understanding Popular History: whose history is it anyway?

A week ago I was traveling and after boarding the Delhi metro, which is always a frustrating experience least to be said, I bumped into this guy who started saying things to me (not talking as I did not want to be the part of his conversation but was rather forced into one). And considering I had to time to kill, I did not disappoint him. He talked at length about India, its' 'problems' of unemployment, corruption, trains being late, the whole nine yards and then he said something about the 'national movement' during the British Raj, which was just a starting point of a rhetorical opinion on the so called 'Modern Indian history', which kinda struck me. He knew, at least he believed he knew, what he was talking about. He knew the dates, the big ones that are necessary to cram for the normal 10th standard test i.e. the mutiny (or the revolt?) formation of the congress, non-cooperation movement, you know the ones. But what was fascinating was the construction or the idea that he had in his mind regarding the overall story connecting these dotes, if I may, in the overall grand narrative that is 'Modern Indian' history. The idea or the construct in his mind was a typical 'nationalist' notion of Indian history which we are 'taught' (or rather spoon fed in our elementary schooling) in which the big bad British enslaved us poor Indians which exploited us, then a response came in the form of Congress which engaged in constant struggle along with some revolutionary, brave, self-sacrificing 'heroes' that gave their lives for this nation and ultimately freedom came but with partition (because of 'Gandhi', as least that's the stranger in the metro told me, I have no idea why he thought or believed that. I tried to tell him something about Jinnah or British's (in)famous 'divide and policy' but his convictions could not be moved). This idea of 'history' of India was firmly rooted in his brain and anything against this notion was pure blasphemy!

Now, this notion or idea of Indian history is what we can call is 'popular history'. In normal understanding, 'popular history' is the prevailing notion or idea of a shared common past which is disseminated for wide readership and understanding through various means (in most cases schools, which not only propagate notions of 'popular history' but also the grander scheme of 'popular culture') , is highly selective in nature as it has a tendency to gloss over striking details and crucially does not have a scholarly basis. And the reason why its aimed at wide readership is to generate overall consensus among the people over it's nation's history which is further reinforced in the society by social interactions, films (which propagate this idea), literature, arts et al. Hence, termed popular history i.e. it is the one which most people of a country are popularised with. Another key aspect of 'popular history' is that people tend to make extreme generalisations, as they have little knowledge about the details regarding history. And these 'generalisations' play a huge role in subverting actual detailed history.

Now, we have to ask ourselves some very important questions pertaining to this 'popular' history of India. First, who are the players who have constructed this history. Next we have to ask, why did they engage in this exercise? Another important aspect which needs to be analysed is the implication of such notion of history which like a specter haunts or manipulates our lives without us even knowing. This entry in this blog will just try to do that. It's an exercise various scholars have already engaged with and have indeed come up with detailed analysis which is worth reading. This entry is a theoretical engagement with the subject, an attempt to be precise and any inputs will be much appreciated.

In order to deconstruct this notion and analyse the process of writing such 'histories' we have to remind ourselves with some basic notions about history. First of all, history is subjective. There is of course an objective base of sorts in history i.e. the sources, the archaeological sites, findings, literature texts et al are all there. But the interpretations differ within historians across time (and maybe even space). For e.g. a marxian historian will present a certain history from a different perspective than a classical historian. Second, I feel history is never the whole truth. The only thing 'true' about history is what you have seen in your life through your own eyes and sometimes that too can be deceptive and have multiple meanings or have multiple perspective seen from different vantage points. So how do we know how much percentage of truth is there in a certain story. In my understanding the percentages/degrees of truth or fact lies in the commonalities of the various viewpoints. From there we can make more than an assertion that a particular event did actually happen as various witnesses have seen or heard or written about it, even if some of the accounts may be extremely exaggerated. Another point we should keep in mind with regards to history is that the interpretations of history changes across generations. For e.g. suppose a 18th century historian when talking about the causes of decline or fall of any great empire will most probably give military reasons but if we jump into 19th century and with the advent of marxism, the historian has new tools to analyse past events so now the historian, from a marxist lens, might give economic reasons by saying that there came a change in the overall mode of production hence the overall structure also changed. So as new tools of investigation and analysis are formulated (and reformulated) history will keep on changing, the events will remain the same but interpretations will change.

Now, let me turn to the key questions regarding 'popular' history. The first one I'll try to tackle is 'who or which agency is 'writing' or 'propagating' this particular history. Now this I must admit is tricky. There are multiple agencies at work I believe. Its' the power structures at various levels in the society that interplay with each other to cultivate (if I can call it that) such 'popular history'. These power structures are present everywhere from institutions of the state and at the level of civil society as well. Such institutions establish the legitimacy of such history. The instruments of legitimacy and hegemony include religious institutions, educational system, the media or put it in the words of Gramsci "the ethical content of the state" (Antonio Garmsci, Sixth Notebook). This legitimised history forms the basis of basic understanding of a 'common, shared and national history'.

Moving on to the question of 'Why'. Why a certain history is propagated, legitimised and made popular, while other 'histories' (which are actual researched histories) are glossed over. One reason I believe is to manufacture support among the public for the overall structure of the society. By being selective in their history, the agencies drive home an agenda which is able to maintain the sanctity of the whole society. If people believe in (without asking) the sanctity of a particular history or culture they would gladly accept it and make it their own. And when they adopt and make it their own, they tend to get defensive or rather arrogant about it. They'd not only stop questioning the basis of such history but rather may end up giving up their lives for this 'history'. It is fascinating to know that many people do end up dying for false causes perpetuated by such 'false' histories. I'm not saying 'my history' is right and 'their history is wrong', I'm just asking people to use their faculty to engage critically with each history or in fact everything that they see in this world.  

Implications of this are huge if one thinks about it. Indoctrination of such notions of history leads to uncritical thinking among the people. The less people think critically the more they start to generalise about things, most importantly history and events. Such beliefs may even lead to uncritical fundamentalism and even 'brainwashing' of the people. The fact that certain groups in the society (not naming any names here) formed on the basis of such history and further spread their propaganda by spreading hatred among the communities is pretty much there to see in the Indian society. Even more troubling is when gullible people fall into their imagined notions of this history, which often ends up influencing their lives subliminally.

What can one do in the times of multiple histories? Well first of all as Marx has said, 'Doubt everything', especially in the age of 'instant information'. Second, critically engage with information that you may have encountered, online or offline. Third, read a lot! And read across perspectives and not stick to one perspective, it is always better for one to know what the major arguments or evidences are from major perspectives, then alone can one have a sound understanding of the past, the present and help shape a better future.