A CRITIQUE OF INDIAN RENAISSANCE GANDHI S CONTRIBUTION

Transcription

1 ISSN No X A Refereed Journal of Higher Education Towards Excellence UGC-ACADEMIC STAFF COLLEGE, GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, AHMEDABAD, INDIA A CRITIQUE OF INDIAN RENAISSANCE GANDHI S CONTRIBUTION Dr. Premnath Mishra ABSTRACT The freedom of India was any single exclusive moment in the history without any background of failure and mistakes which occurred on the 15 th August, Before aspiring for freedom, there was a need, first, to create a formidable India with sound and dignified history, culture, philosophy, and intellectual traditions, and, then, to disseminate that idea called great India in each one living in this country. Many scholars of great stature had been trying to do so to rise against the British Raj for many years before as well as during Gandhi s time. But they failed to rejuvenate the whole of India, to connect, and guide all the people in one direction irrespective of their castes, culture, religions, regions, or commitments. The result was a freedom happening only in tits and bits in different parts of India, castes, and communities. All were striving for their Indias. It was only M K Gandhi who changed the nature of the movement by creating a not individual Indias but by creating a comprehensive, inclusive, and integrated India. The real renaissance was brought by our Father of Nation as his caste, religion, community, and region was only the Mother India. While reading a book on Indian renaissance, I came across many facts which, in the beginning, impressed me a lot, but later on, when I had gone through serious thinking, left me confused and even disillusioned. During Mahatma Gandhi s time as well as hundred preceding years I found many people who were of great eminence and vision, of marvellous sincerity and patriotism of unmatched stature and personality, such as Swami Vivekanand, Sri Aurobindo Ghose, Bankimchandra, Bipin Chandra Pal, Rabindranath tagore, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Dayanand Saraswati, Phiroz Shah Mehta,Sardar Patel, Jinnah, S.C.Bose, Nehru and many more. The list is endless. But the thing which puzzled me a lot was why it took so long to bring vitality and energy to the whole of India to stand erect in front of the Empire and the hostile world to claim not only freedom and progress but also a spinal cord of confidence, of self- belief and self- respect which would never allow India- its people, its culture, its spirituality or its anything- to bow down before any real or imagined challenge or threat thrown at it either by its Imperial rulers or even by the providence. The answer lies in dispassionate scrutiny of the causes and the people who were at the helm of the affairs and in whose hands the task of bringing manhood fell. DEC, VOL.5. ISSUE NO. 1 Page 118

2 A country looks for renaissance generally when its present is too much depleted and the future is even more uninspiring and bleak. This realization of being almost at the verge of extinction or nothingness as a culture, as a religion or as a nation does not come easily and smoothly. It takes a lot of political, cultural, economic, and philosophical pressures in a country to be shaken off of its slumber, of its ignorance, of its sense of nothingness. That is why renaissance is almost always related with nationalism, patriotism, spiritual aspirations, establishment of cultural and philosophical supremacy, and the issues of economic growth. India s renaissance was not in any way different from this line of thought. Indian renaissance was more intellectual, moral and spiritual than political. That is why during the reign of Mughal emperors there was not so much thinking given to this revivalism, though India s identity, mainly Hindu culture and religion, was more in danger during their rule. It seems that the British rulers in India contributed a lot in giving the renaissance thought process a sufficient cause by their attitude, their administration, their education and philosophy. Later on, the force was provided by brilliant Indian educationists, philosophers, religious and spiritual leaders, social reformers and towards the end political leaders. Let us begin with the time when this movement really started getting momentum and impetus. In the beginning Indian people failed to identify and adjust with the British rulers, their thoughts and culture. But with the establishment of colleges and universities, the occidental education, literature, thoughts, and philosophy spread like anything. The uneducated India had no voice or they were too orthodox to open their eyes to see anything different or important other than their too localized interests. The Pundits and Acharyas were too insignificant due to their illogical adherence to superstitions and closed thought system and beliefs to feel any external pressure which were knocking at the doors to finish them. It was mainly with the educated Indians in English that the things got activated. These Anglophiles, who highly believed in the supremacy of everything western-civilization, culture, religion, institutions and philosophy, worked as catalyst. They wrote about Indian economic conditions, its exploitation by the British rulers, the colonial attitude about the natives of India. They also tried, for right or wrong reasons, to meddle with some of India s age long social practices and customs like suttee, child marriage, caste system etc.. These things did two things--- one, people of India realized the damage which was being done to India, and two, they started feeling anger at the attacks which were being exerted against everything Indian---culture, philosophy, religion, institutions, social customs etc., by the British as well as by the new breed of Anglicised Indian youths who were fed with English education and philosophy. Raja Ram Mohan Roy to modern times, the prominent critics or sympathisers of India or British were mainly these Anglophiles. Many of them were great devotees of western civilization and British rule. In 1884, Surendranath Banerjee expressed his confidence in this way, England is here to make India once again the home of civilization to a government with such a purpose we cannot be unfaithful or disloyal. 1 In the beginning, they used to think that the British rule in India is one of the most wonderful phenomena the world has ever seen. 2 They saw hope and promise only in British rule and western civilization and culture. They used to grow with a desire to be part of this British system which treated all with rationality and equality. Colonial rulers provided better example of better life and institutions. These youths were eager to make their career in the British institutions like parliament, judiciary, education system, and administrative departments etc. But once they moved a little deeper in the colonial DEC, VOL.5. ISSUE NO. 1 Page 119

3 world, they found things were drastically different in practice to what was preached in the books. They were the same people who admired the English system and even identified themselves with the western intellectuals so much that they were even ready to convert themselves to Christianity and many did so. They were so much engrossed in the superiority complex that they could not feel comfortable with the native Indians let alone identifying with them. They got frustrated at the realization of the real attitude of the British people to India. They were shocked to realize that they considered the native Indians as just a lot animals. 3 Under the sense of racial superiority, they thought that the people of the country were dirt under their feet. 4 They could not digest the equal status given to the natives. Their approach was that I like the people, I like the masses but I cannot endure the Baboos. 5 This mind-set disillusioned them to the core. They became the opponents of the system, the people, the institutions, and the philosophy which they once loved and admired so much. They gradually started turning into great devotees and propagandists of everything now Indian. But it was not so much natural as it was reactionary due to the treatment given to them in their jobs and services. Many of them did realise that we have become hybrids in dress, in thought, in sentiment, and in culture. 6 They started looking towards India to find something great in her to disprove the belief of their rulers that India was just a barbaric, uncivilized, and had nothing of any great importance. Their search led them to ancient India, its ancient literature, its ancient theology and scriptures which helped them to create a new conceit of the superiority of Indian thought and culture to Christian faith and theology. But unfortunately, both the attitudes, earlier of blind adoration of everything western and now of sentimental idealizations of everything Indian, were reactionary. It could not provide them any conviction which comes from spontaneous understanding and urgency of the soul, never from any anger or momentary reactions. Such people could not belong to either world. What was said about Keshub Chandra Sen is equally applicable to many of the so called revolutionaries and nationalists of the time. Thus Keshub stood at the thresh-hold of his independent career with the shadow of Jesus on the one hand, and the shadow of Chaitanya on the other. 7 Such lot of people can t lead any revolution to the finishing lines. These are the people who are motivated by the less sense of patriotism and nationalism and more by the sense of immediate gains and losses. For nationalism to succeed, conviction in the cause and sense of gratitude towards the country are required more than mere proper work and oratory. Due to their education and personality, they were undoubtedly great orators, writers, social organisers but unfortunately failed nationalists. They were like Gandhi. They were just believers in demagogy which is detestable, but for some, applause is the breath of life. 8 Whether it was Keshub Chandra Sen or Rabindranath Tagore, Bipin Chandra Pal or Aurobindo, Bankim Chandra or Vivekananda, Surendranath Banerjee or Tilak, and later Sardar Patel or Nehru, Jinnah or Aga Khan---all failed to bring India Back to life, to regenerate India with such a life force which could have got freedom for India earlier. Most of them became revolutionary not as a first choice but as second choice. On the surface everything was great about them but in reality the truth was different as Bipin Chandra Pal himself said, In the name of India we loved Europe, and therefore, we fed our fancy not upon India but upon European ideals, European arts, European thought, European culture. We loved the abstraction called India, but, yes, we hated the thing that it actually was. 9 Such an attitude was highly insufficient DEC, VOL.5. ISSUE NO. 1 Page 120

4 to bring about any bigger transformation in Indian life or situation. All over India, many movements and organisations were started about uplifting India s culture, social conditions, and also political scenario but with little success. Chaitra Mela or Jatiya Mela, Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj, policy of boycott, economic Swadeshism, encouragement to handicrafts, many Mahasabha and samitees failed to garner the required support. They could not go beyond a particular region, communities, or leaders to acquire true national colour. Their nationalism and concerns were not the national India and nation s people but the local India and regional people, culture and language. Marathi intellectuals were busy with their culture and language, south Indians and north Indians too had their own narrow concerns first. National concern was secondary to them. Elite primarily remained elite, Marathi primarily Marathi Punjabi a Punjabi, Hindu a Hindu, Muslim a Muslim. Hindus were working for Hindu culture and Muslims were working for Muslim culture. Where was India? Due to these petty interests, the real India was lost. And if they transcended these identities, they became more Universalists like Rabindranath Tagore who saw nationalism as a weapon in the hands of such people who though claimed to be the sympathisers of the motherland yet could not bring any positive help to India. He said that it would become the most painful problem for all of us to protect the motherland from the dangerous clasp of a patriot. 10 According to him, the love of these overzealous patriots was healthy for the country. So Tagore was more interested in samajist ideology---in the well-being of common people but not in the nationalistic ideology. And we adore him as a great patriot who wrote our national anthem. Our great apostle of nationalism, Bankim Chandra Banerjee, whose song Vande Mataram is our national song, who also wrote Anandmath, but surprisingly this great and committed patriotic writer refused tp write a book on Jhansi Ki Rani. Observe the words he chose to use to distance himself from this offer: How I wish to draw that character, but one Anandmath has exasperated the sahebs; if I write another, I will be finished.11 He could write in 1870 s about Hinduism in danger against Muslims though at that time there were colonial rulers there to hurt us. He could not oppose the British rule vehemently and proposed a compromise and need of their rule to guide us on the path of glory. They were paper lions who could roar only to express their deep fear lying inside. He once expressed his feelings saying I won t take up politics, because then I would be sure to rouse the indignation of Anglo-saxonian against Mookherjee.12 Should a person with such interests be called a nationalist? Bal Gangadhar Tilak and many more of his followers were first orthodox Hindus then anything else. They could oppose anything that was in anyway against their orthodox belief. Being a little conservative Hindu, he considered it a sin to let the law about raising the age of consent for marriage, and practice of vaccination get any momentum as they were against their philosophy. It mattered little whether it helped the common people or not. Even Swami Vivekananda criticised their approach calling them religious hypocrites. He voiced his anger and disgust in this way, Our religion is Don t touch me, I am holy. If this goes on for another century, every one of us will be in a lunatic asylum. 13 He further added on the controversy of the Age of Consent Bill, These so called leaders of your communities raised a tremendous hue and cry against it Alas our religion is lost! As is religion consists in making a girl a mother at the age of twelve or thirteen. 14 Could such people get the whole of India behind them in one voice for national causes? Though Vivekananda himself talked about the down-trodden and suffering poor Indians as he said for the salvation of poor India I am going to America. 15 He talked about the need to muster nerve of steel and body of iron, but his own way was: Up India and DEC, VOL.5. ISSUE NO. 1 Page 121

5 conquer the world with your spirituality. 16 A country which was slave not for years but for centuries did not need merely religious and spiritual oratory to show the way to the world but it first needed political and economic freedom to lead the world. Otherwise who would listen to her? He failed to realise the importance of political emancipation as a major weapon to bring about the desired result. He called politics as nonsense. I do not believe in politics. God and Truth are the only policy in the world. Everything else is a trash. 17 As a result he or his mission could not start any political programme with any substantial outcome. His own disciple, Sister Nivedita, got so disillusioned with his mission after his death that she parted ways with them proclaiming, I belong to Hinduism more than ever I did. But I see the political need so clearly too. 18 But to others, the story was different. Unfortunately our leadership was in the hands of such people who could not dare to go beyond a point. They could do anything and talk anything as long as their hidden weak self under the iron clothing was not in danger. Their clarion call gave beautiful phrases but when the time comes for lofty action, like Surendranath Banerjee, they were always on the side of property, privilege and power. 19 Most of the leaders suggested to limit the aspiration to the dominion status only. It was this attitude which prepared the main ground for the congress s split in the 1907 at Surat Adhiveshan in opposition to the policy of Gokhales, Mehtas, Mukherjees etc. who could not see any future beyond petitioning. The trio Bal, Pal, Lal who were considered the apostles of freedom movement, even through aggressive means, too failed to take India to the top against the Imperialist rulers because even they were not so clear-headed about their ends and means, visions and beliefs. When he saw the rise of Pan-Islamism and the aggression of China and Japan, Bipin Chandra Pal could see safety and security not in nationalism but under the imperialism which offered an essentially higher ideal than Nationalism. 20 He would prefer to the British government as he considered it an instrument in the hand of Godfor the salvation of my people. 21 He criticised the Swaraj Andolan of M K Gandhi so much during the later part of his life that he died unnoticed in oblivion. He would like to be rather a Universalist than a nationalist. He lost his contemporary relevance and there was a consequent diminution of his image of a staunch nationalist, though he continued to write about the economic exploitation of India by the British. Another great name in our struggle for freedom, Sri Aurobindo, also failed to actualise the promise he showed in the beginning. This great man announced his meteoric emergence on the Indian political platform by rejecting all the copy-book maxims of the leaders of the time and by professing that his aim was to bring among you not peace but a sword. 22 He believed in the combination of a healthy soul and healthy body. The exclusion of one was the death for the other. But later on, he too considered his spiritual pursuits higher to the national needs of the time. He left his political life mysteriously after his incarceration on the charges of sedition. Then, he found the Mother Kali more appealing than the Mother India. People kept coming on the national scene, lecturing, promising, and doing some social works aqnd even getting involved in the political life of the time, but most of them were lost in their oscillating self- interests and dilemmas. Whatever Mahatma Gandhi talked later in his marvellous book, the Hind Swaraj, in 1909 had already been discussed and talked about by all such great people in their own ways. Those people were even greater in their stature, skills, and oratory yet they failed, they lost their ways as the train of freedom struggle moved forward. DEC, VOL.5. ISSUE NO. 1 Page 122

6 They could not provide any great finishers. They did oppose the western civilization, the western institutions and education, and the exploitation of the Indian masses by industrialization etc. as Gandhi did. They also supported, like Gandhi, Swadeshism, native ancient skills and institutions like Panchayat raj, Ayurveda, importance of everything Indian- language, culture, religion, or philosophy, and also the boycott of imported goods. But they failed and Gandhi succeeded. The question is why it happened. The problem was their lack of conviction and the belief in what they were doing. They lacked the unity of thought, purpose and action. They were not an Indian only in every respect. They were so many things at the same time which could produce only confused vision. They did not have sufficient clarity of vision to hold on to India firmly and with unshaking mind forever in all odds. They were always too eager to lose the one to catch the other purpose and aspiration. It was so because they were divided souls within. B. C. Pal once wrote that they loved Europe in the name of India. They could not concretise the abstraction called India and that is why they hated the thing that India actually was. They could not hold India firmly in their hands and fix their eyes unwaveringly at her throughout their lives. Sometimes their divided loyalties, sometimes their divided beliefs, and the other times their contradicting approaches did not allow them to lead the nation on firm footing towards its goals with consisting. They were all heroes but in tits and bits not in whole. Their gods and truths kept changing---sometimes it was the poor and the other times it was the culture, sometimes it was religion and other times it was philosophy, sometimes it was English education and the other times it was the traditional Indian education, sometimes it was country s interests and the other times it was personal interests, and finally sometimes nationalism and the other times Universalism. Such movements and oscillating conviction and action plans were bound to fail without bearing any noteworthy substantial fruits. If we look at the struggle for independence, we would realise why Gandhi was the spontaneous choice to be the father of nation. He was really the creator of modern India. It was he who created India in the psyche of all the Indians--- irrespective of their caste, creed, or religion. He too was a Hindu, a religious man, a lover of the poor and the untouchables, a leader of the upper castes and lower castes, a well-wisher of Muslims and Hindus alike, a great admirer of everything good in the West as well as in the East. He too had all the dilemmas which other people of the day were passing through. But the difference was in his conviction which brought him such clarity of thought and purpose that he could steer through his all dilemmas and lead the nation to the peak. Gandhi could succeed in bringing about a perfect co-ordination in all these things. This perfect co-ordination provided him the perceptible vision of the whole which he could pass on to the common Indian public during their struggle against the British. He could lead the nation with this vision and did not let his vision get scattered as had happened with the other people. Mahatma Gandhi could talk of poor as well as convince the land-lords and capitalists, he could satisfy both the caste Hindus and the followers of Dr Ambedkar, he could get all the English educated Indians like Nehru and the highly Indianised persons like Sardar Patel behind him. He was very clear about his vision about Hind Swaraj. He led the life which he preached. He could connect the masses of the whole India with himself and himself with the masses of the whole India. To others, they (public) were Indians, but to Gandhi India was Gandhi, Gandhi was everybody, and everybody was Gandhi. He was nothing else, his whole DEC, VOL.5. ISSUE NO. 1 Page 123

7 identity and existence was India. His first and foremost concern was India. For her well-being he could give up his family, power, prestige, and even principle if India needed. He could sacrifice his reputation and self-respect aside, and talk to Jinnah for India s unity, though he had no misunderstanding about Jinnah s hatred towards him. He was always prepared to sacrifice his ego and differences with anybody for one cause, and that cause was only India, if he thought that it was in the interest of mother India. He did not divide Congress but left it when it did not feel comfortable with him, and found it difficult to function well in his presence. But during the Second World War, he came back to her when she needed him the most. His truth, his God, his everything was India. He found his meaning and identity through only India. With such an approach, the whole India could follow him; listen to him with trust and confidence. The renaissance failed to rejuvenate the whole of India despite constant efforts of great scholars and social workers for years, but Gandhi got success in revitalising and rejuvenating India to the extent that it started looking like a formidable power which could force the imperial power to come on table with her, and could dictate its own terms and conditions for talks and discussions. It was a complete turnaround. The renaissance could not do much because it was of intellectual nature in efforts and approach, whereas India needed a practical approach and effort which could bring together all economic, social, cultural, religious, communal, and political interests without excluding any. Gandhi succeeded because he was not living for anything his but for everything India s. He lost himself so that India could re-emerge as victorious, respectful, free, and strong country. It was all because of mainly Gandhi that India is a secular country. India did not make him father of the nation but he became the father of nation. To vitalise a country, you do need so much speeches and philosophies as you need practical examples of action, conviction, and sacrifice. Mahatma Gandhi never wavered from his path in any crisis or any situation, and if it ever happened, he regained his conviction within no time through his unflinching love and devotion to India. To rejuvenate a nation, a sincere person is required who is human only in body not in any other sense. He did not behave like any other ordinary individual of bones and flash, of narrow emotions and feelings. He thought and behaved like an individual who lived and died only for India. He was a man whose soul, body, and flash--- everything was India. I am fully convinced that if need Gandhi would have sacrificed even truth and God for India. Undoubtedly there was an India which had geographical shape and some historical background too, but it was Gandhi who gave birth to a psychological India, social India, and political India. He gathered scattered parts of Bharat, co-ordinated them, shaped them, bound them, irrigated them, and then spread them in each and every individual who was living in any part of this country. He brought India to life. That is why even today Gandhiji is taken as synonym of Indian freedom struggle or, with some reservations, even of India. DEC, VOL.5. ISSUE NO. 1 Page 124

8 END NOTES 1. R. C. Palit (ed.), Speeches of Surendranath Banerjea, Vol.2. p Quted by C. H. Phlips in The Evolution of India and Pakistan, O.U.P., 1964, pp By Prof. Prat of Williams College, Massachusetts, in his book India and Its Faiths, quoted by Lajpat Rai in his monograph Young India, Publications Division, (Government of India Edition), 1968, pp Chapter 18 of Considerations on Representative Government, para Sir Henry Cotton, New India, London, 1886, p Quoted by Ronaldshay,op.cit., p. 98, from a memorandum submitted to him by B. C. Chaterji, Barrister-at-law. 7. Protap Chunder Mozoomdar s words quoted by R. Rolland, op. cit., p.113 f.n. 8. Lajpat Rai, Indian s Will to Freedom, Madras, Pp B. C. Pal, Swadeshi and Swaraj, Calcutta, 1954, pp Quoted in Arabinda Poddar, Renaissance in Bengal: Search for Unity, Published by the Registrar, Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Simla, and printed at Sanjay Composers and Printers, Uphar Cinema Building, Green Park, New Delhi, 1977, pp Ibid, p Ibid, p India and Her Problems, Almora, 1946, p Selections From Swami Vivekananda, Almora, 1946, pp R. Rolland, The Life of Vivekananda, (5 th Edition), Calcutta, 1960, pp Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol.3, pp Quoted from R. Rolland, op., pp ,f.n. 18. Quoted from Amales Tripathi s The Extremist Challenge, Calcutta, 1967, p Lajpat Rai, Indian s Will to Freedom, Madras, Pp Quoted by Bipin Chandra Pal in the Introduction of his book Nationalism and Empire, Calcutta, 1916, p Writing and Speeches, Vol. 1, Calcutta, 1958, pp Editorial in Bande Mataram on Our Rulers and Bycott, 7 April, Dr. Premnath Mishra Associate Professor, M.N.Science College Patan DEC, VOL.5. ISSUE NO. 1 Page 125