3/4/2015 Fundamental conflicts in Indian nationhood: Gandhi vs revolutionaries

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/subhas­chandra­bose­fundamental­conflicts­in­indian­nationhood­gandhi­vs­revolutionaries/story/1/2356.html 1/19

POLITICS SPORTS LIFE SCI-TECH MONEY HUMOUR ART & CULTURE

Latest news from India Today | Mardaani: Rani Mukerji humbled to receive special award

POLITICS

SASWATI SARKAR @sarkar_swati

| Long-form | 03-03-2015

A. Quest for principled nationhood

The history of freedom movement in India, as described instandard text books, can be summarised in one pithy sentence:"Mahatma Gandhi gave us freedom through non­violence". Thisnarrative has been entrenched deep into our consciousness byevery dignitary during her customary tribute to Rajghat. It hastherefore been but expected that one of the most popular primeministers India has ever seen, PM Narendra Modi, would motivate

Fundamental conflicts in Indian nationhood:Gandhi vs revolutionariesThe question then that remains to be answered is if the insistence on passivesubmission to violent intrusion was somehow intrinsic to Indian ethos, or isit that the revolutionaries internalised the essence of Indian nationhood.

More from Saswati Sarkar | POLITICS | Latest of the lot

3/4/2015 Fundamental conflicts in Indian nationhood: Gandhi vs revolutionaries

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/subhas­chandra­bose­fundamental­conflicts­in­indian­nationhood­gandhi­vs­revolutionaries/story/1/2356.html 2/19

his flagship Swachh Bharat programme with the punch line ­"Gandhi ji has given us freedom, what have we given him inreturn?" Yet, an age old wisdom tells us that a nation is enslavedfor extended durations when the contemporary leaders fail herand masses exhibit innate weaknesses of character. Freedom istherefore rarely given, it is taken ­ taken by repaying the debt offailure through blood and tears of future generations. Does thejewel in the crown of the empire where the sun never set thenremain an eminent exception which was awarded freedom gratis?

History perhaps tells us otherwise. The best and the bravest menand women of an enslaved nation hastened the demise of themighty British empire by resisting them tooth and nail in thetrenches of Bengal, UP, Bihar, Punjab, Odisha and Maharashtra,and moving beyond the borders of India, from England, USA and South East Asia. Crushed by the Raj, they didn't live to tell theirstory. Yet, we must, narrate their tales, again and again. For anation that does not know its history, does not make one. It is alsoin the history of Indian freedom fight, or rather in the denial ofthe heroic revolutionaries their due, that the seeds of leftmovements in India would be sown. But, above and beyond, thehistory of freedom struggle in India is of greater import for thefoundational conflicts it revealed between differentunderstandings of India's nationhood than the outcome itself, andthe attribution of due credits per se.

A.1 Polar opposite concepts of nationhood

A closer examination would reveal that the revolutionaries'comprehension of Indian nationhood was in stark contrast to thatof MK Gandhi's. The conflict in the two understandings was not aconsequence, but the principal motivation, for the divergence inthe paths the two pursued for the common goal of freedom fromforeign occupation ­ a goal that MK Gandhi accepted as late as in1930 as a fait accompli under intense pressure from nationalist

3/4/2015 Fundamental conflicts in Indian nationhood: Gandhi vs revolutionaries

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/subhas­chandra­bose­fundamental­conflicts­in­indian­nationhood­gandhi­vs­revolutionaries/story/1/2356.html 3/19

factions comprising of younger leaders like Subhas Bose and alarge section of Congress cadres ­ a goal that nationalist factionsand revolutionaries articulated about thirty years before. QuotingAurobindo Ghosh:

"Political freedom is the life­breath of a nation. To attempt socialreform, educational reform, industrial expansion, the moralimprovement of the race without aiming first and foremost atpolitical freedom, is the very height of ignorance and futility. Theprimary requisite for national progress, national reform, is thehabit of free and healthy national thought and action which isimpossible in a state of servitude."

This delay is confounding because MK Gandhi, if not hisprogenies like Nehru, was fully aware that India existed as one nation from times immemorial. In his own words,

"The English have taught us that we were not a nation beforeand it will require centuries before we became one nation. This iswithout foundation. We were one nation before they came toIndia. One thought inspired us. Our mode of life was the same. Itwas because we were one nation that they were able to establishone kingdom." [16], Chapter 9, p. 56, [13].

"Our leading men traveled throughout India either on foot or inbullock­carts what do you think could have been the intention ofthose farseeing ancestors of ours who established Setuabandh(Rameshwar) in the south, Jagannath in the east and Hardwarin the north as places of pilgrimage? You will admit they were nofools. They knew that worship of God could have been performedjust as well at home. They taught us that those whose hearts wereaglow with righteousness had the Ganga in their own homes. Butthey saw that India was one undivided land so made by nature.They, therefore, argued that it must be one nation. Arguing thus,they established holy places in various parts of India, and firedthe people with idea of nationality in a manner unknown in other

3/4/2015 Fundamental conflicts in Indian nationhood: Gandhi vs revolutionaries

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/subhas­chandra­bose­fundamental­conflicts­in­indian­nationhood­gandhi­vs­revolutionaries/story/1/2356.html 4/19

parts of the world." [16], Chapter 9, p. 56, [13].

Thus, despite the cognisance of existence of India as a nation, theprocrastination in the proclamation of her natural rights, reveals alack of clarity in identifying the invaders and awareness of naturalrights itself on the part of MK Gandhi, which is why it isimperative to examine how Gandhi relates to concepts of Indiannationhood itself.

We also observe that Gandhi advocates, nay insists, that Indiacannot and should not attain independence by deviating from thepath of non­violence. In his quest for freedom, rather moralperfection, he advocated persevering with non­violence even whenhis people were threatened with mass extermination ­ theconsistency of his perception of ethics with civilizational ethosanywhere in the world including India must therefore be criticallyexamined:

"There is nothing brave about dying while killing. It is an illusionof bravery. The true martyr is one who lays down his life withoutkilling. You may turn around and ask whether all Hindus andSikhs should die. Yes, I would say. Such martyrdom will not be invain. You may compliment me or curse me for talking in thismanner; but I shall only say what I feel in my heart." pp. 54­58,[2].

"Hindus should not harbor anger in their hearts against Muslimseven if the latter wanted to destroy them. Even if the Muslimswant to kill us all we should face death bravely. If theyestablished their rule after killing Hindus we would be usheringin a new world by sacrificing our lives. None should fear death.Birth and death are inevitable for every human being. Whyshould we then rejoice or grieve? If we die with a smile we shallenter into a new life, we shall be ushering in a new India [6].

"If all the Punjab were to die to the last man without killing, the

3/4/2015 Fundamental conflicts in Indian nationhood: Gandhi vs revolutionaries

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/subhas­chandra­bose­fundamental­conflicts­in­indian­nationhood­gandhi­vs­revolutionaries/story/1/2356.html 5/19

Punjab would become immortal. It is more valiant to get killedthan to kill. Of course my condition is that even if we are facingdeath we must not take up arms against them. But you take uparms and when you are defeated you come to me. Of what helpcan I be to you in these circumstances? If you cared to listen tome, I could restore calm in the Punjab even from here. Onethousand lost their lives of course, but not like brave men. Iwould have liked the sixteen who escaped by hiding to come intothe open and courted death. More is the pity. What a difference itwould have made if they had bravely offered themselves as anonviolent, willing sacrifice! Oppose with ahimsa if you can, butgo down fighting by all means if you have not the nonviolence ofthe brave. Do not turn cowards." pp. 200­201, [3].

"Today a Hindu from Rawalpindi narrated the tragic events thathad taken place there. The villages around Rawalpindi have beenreduced to ashes. The Hindus of the Punjab are seething withanger. The Sikhs say they are followers of Guru Govind Singhwho has taught them how to wield the sword. But I would exhortthe Hindus and Sikhs again and again not to retaliate. I makebold to say that if Hindus and Sikhs sacrifice their lives at handsof Muslims without rancour or retaliation they will becomesaviours not only of their own religions but also of Islam and thewhole world." pp. 225­226, [4].

"But Jinnah Saheb presides over a great organisation. Once hehas affixed his signature to the appeal, how can even one Hindube killed at the hands of the Muslims? I would tell the Hindus toface death cheerfully if the Muslims are out to kill them. I wouldbe a real sinner if after being stabbed I wish in my last momentthat my son should seek revenge. I must die without rancor." [5] The revolutionaries assumed a polar opposite position. MN Roy, arevolutionary (who later turned communist) wrote:

"British rule in India was established by force and is maintainedby force, therefore, it can and will be overthrown only by a

3/4/2015 Fundamental conflicts in Indian nationhood: Gandhi vs revolutionaries

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/subhas­chandra­bose­fundamental­conflicts­in­indian­nationhood­gandhi­vs­revolutionaries/story/1/2356.html 6/19

violent revolution. We are not in favor of resorting to violence ifit can be helped; but for self­defence, the people of India mustadopt violent means without which the foreign domination basedupon violence cannot be ended." p. 24, [7].

Subhas Bose:

"Freedom is not given, it is taken." "For an enslaved people, therecan be no greater pride, no higher honour, than to be the firstsoldier in the army of liberation." [8]"No real change in historyhas ever been achieved by discussions."

The best exposition of how the revolutionaries responded toBritish invasion was perhaps provided by Madanlal Dhingra.Enraged by the executions of revolutionaries like Khudiram Bose,Kanai lal Dutta, Satinder Pal, Pandit Kanshi Ram. MadanlalDhingra exacted revenge upon the British by assassinating CurzonWylie on July 1, 1909. In his trial, he said:

"And I maintain that if it is patriotic in an Englishman to fightagainst the Germans if they were to occupy this country, it ismuch more justifiable and patriotic in my case to fight againstthe English. I hold the English people responsible for the murderof 80 millions of Indian people in the last 50 years, and they arealso responsible for taking away 100,000,000 every year fromIndia to this country. I also hold them responsible for thehanging and deportation of my patriotic countrymen, who didjust the same as the English people here are advising theircountrymen to do. And the Englishman who goes out to Indiaand gets, say, 100 a month, that simply means that he passes asentence of death on a thousand of my poor countrymen, becausethese thousand people could easily live on this ?100, which theEnglishman spends mostly on his frivolities and pleasures. Justas the Germans have no right to occupy this country, so theEnglish people have no right to occupy India, and it is perfectlyjustifiable on our part to kill the Englishman who is polluting our

3/4/2015 Fundamental conflicts in Indian nationhood: Gandhi vs revolutionaries

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/subhas­chandra­bose­fundamental­conflicts­in­indian­nationhood­gandhi­vs­revolutionaries/story/1/2356.html 7/19

sacred land. I am surprised at the terrible hypocrisy, the farce,and the mockery of the English people. They pose as thechampions of oppressed humanity ­ the peoples of the Congo andthe people of Russia ­ when there is terrible oppression andhorrible atrocities committed in India; for example, the killing oftwo millions of people every year and the outraging of ourwomen. In case this country is occupied by Germans, and theEnglishman, not bearing to see the Germans walking with theinsolence of conquerors in the streets of London, goes and killsone or two Germans, and that Englishman is held as a patriot bythe people of this country, then certainly I am prepared to workfor the emancipation of my Motherland. Whatever else I have tosay is in the paper before the Court I make this statement, notbecause I wish to plead for mercy or anything of that kind. I wishthat English people should sentence me to death, for in that casethe vengeance of my countrymen will be all the more keen. I putforward this statement to show the justice of my cause to theoutside world, and especially to our sympathisers in Americaand Germany." [ 9]

From the gallows, he said that:

"I believe that a nation held down by foreign bayonets is in aperpetual state of war. Since open battle is rendered impossibleto a disarmed race, I attacked by surprise. Since guns weredenied to me I drew forth my pistol and fired. Poor in wealth andintellect, a son like myself has nothing else to offer to the motherbut his own blood. And so I have sacrificed the same on her altar.The only lesson required in India at present is to learn how todie, and the only way to teach it is by dying ourselves. My onlyprayer to God is that I may be re­born of the same mother and Imay re­die in the same sacred cause till the cause is successful.Vande Mataram!" [10]

All the above revolutionaries were therefore articulating what anation's response ought to be in a state of war, a state which every

3/4/2015 Fundamental conflicts in Indian nationhood: Gandhi vs revolutionaries

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/subhas­chandra­bose­fundamental­conflicts­in­indian­nationhood­gandhi­vs­revolutionaries/story/1/2356.html 8/19

subjugated nation is in. An even cursory study of world historysuggests that their response has not merely been honorable, butalso natural and organic. We will quote the oath that Mazzini,held in the highest veneration all over the world, administered tothe members of his secret league: "I swear to devote myselfentirely and always to the common object of creating one free,independent and republican Italy by every means within mypower." p. 230, [10]. It is worthwhile mentioning that "LloydGeorge expressed to Winston Churchill his highest admiration ofDhingra's attitude as a patriot. Churchill shared the same viewsand quoted with admiration Dhingra's last words as the finestever made in the name of patriotism. They compared Dhingrawith Plutarch's immortal heroes. Huge placards from Irishpapers paid glowing tributes to Dhingra: Ireland honorsMadanlal Dhingra who was proud to lay down his life for thesake of his country. " p. 230, [10]. In stark contrast to thosewhose authority over India Dhingra challenged, his illustriouscompatriot Gandhi had only words of condemnation for Dhingraas for every other revolutionary he came across.

The question then that remains to be answered is if the insistenceon passive submission to violent intrusion was somehow intrinsicto Indian ethos, or is it that the revolutionaries internalised theessence of Indian nationhood. The dilemma is fundamental asIndia existed as a civilisational nation long before the Britisharrived. No one man, or even a group, ought to therefore have theliberty to redefine Indian nationhood without a critical appraisalof the consistency of their chosen definition with age oldcivilisational ethos as also the advantages and disadvantages ofthe same. For, a nation is but defined by its cultural ethos. Indeed,"a nation never means a land as such. A nation indicates a groupor a community of people which has been traditionally living in aparticular land, which has its own distinctive culture, and whichhas an identity separate from other peoples of the world byvirtue of the distinctiveness of its culture. The culturaldistinctiveness of a nation may be based on its race, or religion,

3/4/2015 Fundamental conflicts in Indian nationhood: Gandhi vs revolutionaries

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/subhas­chandra­bose­fundamental­conflicts­in­indian­nationhood­gandhi­vs­revolutionaries/story/1/2356.html 9/19

or language, or a combination of some or all of these factors, butall­in­all there has to be a distinct culture which will mark thenation out from peoples belonging to other lands. Third, theremay be internal differences in several respects among the peoplebelonging to this culture, but in spite of these differences there isan overall sense of harmony born out of the fundamentalelements of their culture, and a sense of pride which inspires inthem a desire to maintain their separate identity from the rest ofthe world. Finally, as a result of these factors, this group ofpeople has its own outlook towards the history of its traditionalhomeland; it has its own heroes and villains, its own view ofglory and shame, success and failure, victory and defeat." p. 3,[11].

A.2 Unresolved nationhood­but why now?

Those rooted in the present may well question the need to ponderover this dilemma of contrasting ethos of nationhood, now, giventhat the last identified invader has left us about 70 years back. Myanswer would be multi­fold. We would not know which directionto move forward unless we identify what kind of nation we want tobecome ­ one that abjectly surrenders to any aggression that caresto look our way citing principles of morality that the opponentdoes not observe, or one that demonstrates the confidence torespond and defend in a language the aggressor understands. Tocite a recent example, after his much touted visit to India, USPresident Obama suggested that India has deviated from theprinciples of religious tolerance that MK Gandhi had espoused.US President Obama is probably on solid grounds here, as MKGandhi's idea of religious tolerance would involve Hindus andSikhs to court death when confronted by practitioners of otherreligions. India needs to deviate from that path and perhaps Indiaindeed has in parts where Hindus and Sikhs are in majority. But,Obama could not be countered with truth as post independenceIndia has vociferously identified herself with Gandhian principlesnotwithstanding their merit or rational support. This has

3/4/2015 Fundamental conflicts in Indian nationhood: Gandhi vs revolutionaries

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/subhas­chandra­bose­fundamental­conflicts­in­indian­nationhood­gandhi­vs­revolutionaries/story/1/2356.html 10/19

pervaded to the extent that RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, anideological descendant of Veer Savarkar, one of few to haveintellectually opposed Gandhi during his life time, profuselyelaborated on the virtues of non­violence in a recent speech [12].

"Those forces which focus only at achieving the economicinterests of their own groups in the name of globalisation; wantto expand their own empires in the name of establishing peaceor; compelling all other countries to remain weak and helpless inthe name of non­proliferation of weapons, can never and shallnever let the dream of a happy and beautiful world become areality. In the history of past one thousand years, Bharat hasbeen the only example which has made genuine efforts in thisdirection through the path of truth and non­violence. WithBharat's deep faith in the mantra of 'Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam' (ieentire world is one family), a wide range of her Rishis, Munis,Bhikshus, Shramanas, Saints, scholars and experts travelledacross the world from Mexico to Siberia in olden eras. Withoutattempting to conquer any empire or without destroying way oflife of any society, prayer systems or national and culturalidentity, they shared with them the Bharatiya ethos of love,affection and universal welfare."

Mohan Bhagwat would surely know about the Hindu monastictradition of carrying arms given that the armed rebellion ofSanyasis (monks) inspired Anandamath the literary masterpieceof Bankim Chandra Chatterjee which in turn gave India hernational song Vande Mataram (it is after all RSS that has preserved this song long after it has been obliterated from thecultural memory of the province where it originated from). Also, ifnot the rishis and scholars, the Chola kings of India certainly didseek to establish an empire beyond the precincts of India example,in far East, through military conquest. But, the historical accuracyof Bhagwat's statement constitutes only a side note in thisdiscussion. The values that Bhagwat and President Obama choseto emphasise on are more pertinent. For, "a nation not only has

3/4/2015 Fundamental conflicts in Indian nationhood: Gandhi vs revolutionaries

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/subhas­chandra­bose­fundamental­conflicts­in­indian­nationhood­gandhi­vs­revolutionaries/story/1/2356.html 11/19

its own heroes and villains, its own view of glory and shame,success and failure, victory and defeat," but it is also the choice ofthese very heroes and villains, understanding of glory and shame,success and failure, victory and defeat that define a nation.

Gandhi is no longer an individual, but a school of thought ­ 1)one that espouses passive submission as a response to blatantaggression and 2) one that prioritises morality of means over thenecessity of end. It is this school that is rapidly becomingrepresentative of Indian nationhood. If this school defines India,the world would be right to expect a docile submission wheneverIndia is confronted with external or internal aggression. Wetherefore at least need to examine if the other end of thespectrum, namely valor, purposive actions, national goals overmoralistic egos and self righteousness ever had a place in theancient civilisation that India is, and how far they succeeded. IfGandhianism does indeed define Indian nationhood, it isimperative to explore if the proponent adhered to the loftystandards that he enforced on others, or did he apply themselectively for his own people while providing substantial leewayto their aggressors (British or Muslims seeking partition of Indiaas the case may be) ­ in other words was Gandhi a committedGandhian himself or Gandhianism was also for him a meanstowards the end of the halo of sainthood ?

A fundamental question in this quest ought to be if the conflictbetween the Gandhian school and one that seeks a robust counterto intrusion through the most efficacious means regardless of itsmoral basis emerged during freedom struggle against the British.Or is it that the protagonists merely chose different sides in aneternal conflict of values that has been recurring over the ages. Ifit is the latter, then we need to examine how did the two sides fareover ages? To resolve this query, let us retrace our paths throughthe sands of time to 713 AD, the year in which Arabs establishedtheir first foothold in India ­ in Sindh, which was then a part ofIndia.

3/4/2015 Fundamental conflicts in Indian nationhood: Gandhi vs revolutionaries

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/subhas­chandra­bose­fundamental­conflicts­in­indian­nationhood­gandhi­vs­revolutionaries/story/1/2356.html 12/19

Muhammad Bin Kasim who conquered Sindh in 713 AD from theHindu king Dahar had just arrived at one of its principalities,Siwistan, with the goal of annexing it. The king and many of hischieftains were Hindus, but Buddhism was a dominant religionthere in the 7th century pp. 9­10 [1]. Samanis (originallyShramans or Buddhist monks) were also rulers of several cities.The earliest account of the invasion of Sindh, Chachnama,recounts the following story pp 91­92 [1]:

Upon Kasim's arrival, the Samani at Siwistan, who was a chiefof the people, sent the following message to Bachehra (the rulerof Siwistan and a cousin of King Dahar of Sindh) , saying: "Wepeople are a priestly class (Nasiks), our religion is peace and ourcreed is good will (to all). According to our faith, fighting andslaughtering are not allowable. We will never be in favor ofshedding blood. You are sitting quite safe in a lofty palace; weare afraid that this horde will come and, taking us to be yourfollowers and dependents, will deprive us of our life andproperty. We have come to know that Amir Hajaj has, under theorders of the Khalifah, instructed them to grant pardon to thosewho ask for it. So when an opportunity offers, and when weconsider it expedient, we shall enter into a solemn treaty andbinding covenant with them. The Arabs are said to be faithful totheir word. Whatever they say they act up to and do not deviatefrom." p. 90, [1]. Bacchera refused to accept this advise and someresidents of Siwistan were ready to fight. Muhammed Kasimattacked. The Samani party reprimanded Bacchera and forbadehim to fight, saying "This army is very strong and powerful; youcannot stand against them. We do not wish that, through yourobstinacy, our life and property would be endangered." p. 90, [1].Bacchera still refused their counsel. Then the Samani clique senta message to Kasim that: "All the people, whether agriculturists,artisans, or other common folk, have left Bacchera's side and donot (now) acknowledge allegiance to him, and Bacchera has notsufficient men and materials of war, and can never stand against

3/4/2015 Fundamental conflicts in Indian nationhood: Gandhi vs revolutionaries

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/subhas­chandra­bose­fundamental­conflicts­in­indian­nationhood­gandhi­vs­revolutionaries/story/1/2356.html 13/19

you in an open field, or in a struggle with you." p. 91, [53]. Regardless of whether this inside information was accurate, thisdefinitely increased the zeal of the Muslim army. Kasim orderedthe assault to be continued night and day. The occupants of thefort ceased to fight after about a week. "When Bacchera foundthat the fort was in great straits and that could not stand long, hedetermined to leave it. So when the world was hid behind thepitch­dark curtain of night, he issued from the Northern gate,and crossing the river, fled away. " p. 91, [1].

So, the conflict between pacifist surrender and robust response toinvasions as also the morality of means and the necessity of theend (Samani considered a defense that relies on force as immoral)did exist as far back as early 8th century AD. Our quest thenwould let us discover who emerged as heroes and who as villainsacross such ideological and real life conflicts India fought over theages. Villains would naturally occur dime a dozen, but were thereany real hero in the end? How did the different choices fare in thisconflict? Who succeeded, who failed, and why? The win that theSamani registered would be short lived as the dominant religion inthis region, Buddhism, would be obliterated from Sindh underIslamic sword but Hindus would continue to comprise up to about25 per cent of Sindh even until 1947. Bachera could not defendSiwistan either, but Siwistan lost its independence with his losstoo. While the choice of the hero and the villain is perhaps clear inthis context, it is apparent both the hero and the villain lost ­ justthat the hero tried and failed, diminished and undermined by thevillain. Yet, Hindus would start recovering lost ground in Sindh asearly as 715 AD, and by 9th century AD, they would regain controlof most of Sindh. Thus, Bachera failed, but inspired others tocomplete part of his unfinished agenda.

Our quest would reveal that Indian history has displayed anastonishing continuity. Indians, or Hindus in particular, haveshown similar traits over ages, excelled in similar spheres andcommitted similar grave errors. For instance, resistance to every

3/4/2015 Fundamental conflicts in Indian nationhood: Gandhi vs revolutionaries

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/subhas­chandra­bose­fundamental­conflicts­in­indian­nationhood­gandhi­vs­revolutionaries/story/1/2356.html 14/19

invasion would reveal two parallel strands ­ one of sublimeheroism, the other of base collaboration with the invader, overt orcovert. Heroes would invariably not live to tell their tale, whilecollaborators would continue to prosper. Next, Indian nationalismup until early twentieth century will be deeply rooted or may evenbe synonymous with Hindu faith and practices. Faith and pride inreligion would constitute pillars of strength of Indian nationalism,yet simultaneously its Achilles heel too. We will also discover thatHindu response to invasion would be shaped by the distinctivefeatures of the specific school of Hinduism the adherentssubscribed to ­ in particular, considering Buddhism as a school ofHinduism, we will observe that Buddhist pacifism wouldundermine the heroic resistance the adherents of SanatanaDharma would launch (the contrast between the Samanid and theBachera would be typical). Buddhist pacifism is perhapsintellectually closest to the passive surrender advocated by theGandhian school.

The remarkable continuity in history compels us to ponder on if history repeated itself so ominously because the fundamentalconflicts in our nationhood had not been resolved. The unresolvedconflict between the Samani and Bacchera would reappear at acritical juncture of India's struggle for invasion by anotherimperialist power. If we move fast forward to about 1,225 yearslater, the Samani of Siwistan, Bachera and an occupier (albeit adifferent one) reemerge ­ to pose a question that would haunt ournational consciousness yet again. The new incarnation of theSamani would cite the morality of non­violence to justifycooperation with the occupier in war time when the occupier wasat his weakest. The Bachera would reject his counsel and seek afight to the finish, and would enlist some support from within hisown Siwistan too. The samani would however persist to graduallydemoralise and diminish his support. Eventually realising that hecan no more defend from within , the Bachera would leave hisSiwistan , eerily again, when the world was hid behind the pitch­dark curtain of night. In 1940, starting from his ancestral home at

3/4/2015 Fundamental conflicts in Indian nationhood: Gandhi vs revolutionaries

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/subhas­chandra­bose­fundamental­conflicts­in­indian­nationhood­gandhi­vs­revolutionaries/story/1/2356.html 15/19

Elgin road in Calcutta, he would take a trek across central Asia toreach far West, navigate back to far East to strike the blow hecould not deliver from within. The rest as they say is history, onethat we shall revisit in due course. That history will tell us theBachera who left us in 1940 didn't himself succeed in hischerished goal of freeing from the clutches of the occupier themotherland he so dearly loved, but his heroism would motivateothers to carry his baton to the goalpost, half way to be specific. Ifthe Samani ever aspired to free his motherland as one nation thatshe was, he did fail too, but he would succeed in acquiring a haloof sainthood perhaps at the expense of the well being of his ownpeople. Notwithstanding, again neither of the two would reachtheir stated goals.

A.3 The road ahead

The last word in the history of India has not yet been said. Indiawon freedom in 1947 in a pyrrhic victory after a partition whichinvolved the slaughter of 2,00,000­5,00,000 in the Punjab regionalone [14]. India has subsequently taken tremendous strides inadvancing knowledge, which again represents a continuity ofhistory (pursuit of knowledge continued in India even duringperiods of foreign occupation). But, as we have learned the hardway, the world renowned centers of learning like Nalanda andVikramshila themselves succumbed to the swords of the Turkicinvader Bakhtiyar Khilji, and could naturally not protect Indiafrom invasion. So, knowledge will not suffice by itself. And, Indiamay not have seen the last of its foreign invasions either. Indeed,even after 1947 we fought four official wars. In the first, in 1947,two months after its birth, Pakistan invaded Kashmir. The Indianarmy repulsed the attack, and was about to drive the Pakistaniarmy out of Kashmir, when her first prime minister, JL Nehru, theideological descendant and the PM choice of MK Gandhi, called ahalt to the fighting and brought the dispute before the UnitedNations. Kashmir remains divided, and its Pakistan occupied partis continually been used to foment terrorism in the remainder that

3/4/2015 Fundamental conflicts in Indian nationhood: Gandhi vs revolutionaries

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/subhas­chandra­bose­fundamental­conflicts­in­indian­nationhood­gandhi­vs­revolutionaries/story/1/2356.html 16/19

is in India. In the third war, China inflicted a humiliating defeaton India (1962) due to the Himalayan blunders effected by thepolitical leadership of the same PM Nehru. A soldier lamentedsubsequently "Our peasantry has always fought gallantly; but it isan undisputable fact that seldom has this bravery been utilised towin battle field victories and thus to attain our political objectives,due to inept political or military leadership, or both. Need wefollow this tragic path interminably." P. XVII [15]. In the last thusfar, in 1971, in yet another instance of inept political leadership,we lost the territory gained on ground on negotiation table.

Next time, whenever that is, let India's response be consistent toher national character that has emerged from her hoary past andevolved with imprints of time. Let us perhaps ensure that a futureBacchera can lodge a fierce counter attack from within, let theSamanis of his generation stand by, rather than against, him. LetIndia not meekly lose Siwistan to a persistent Kasim next time.Towards this end, in a series of articles, we will be exploring thecivilisational ethos that have shaped India's response to externalaggression throughout her past, and position the ideologicalconflict between Gandhi and the revolutionaries in that context.

Acknowledgement:

The series is the closest to a jointly authored piece among all mysingle­authored articles. Many of the ideas explored here haveemerged in extended discussions with @dikgaj. The argumentspresented here have been sharpened owing to the constructivecriticisms of Shanmukh (@maidros78). Kausik Gangopadhyay(@kausikgy) has suggested some insightful directions that I haveexplored. Sushuptii (@sushuptii) has provided many of thereferences I am using.

This intellectual exploration has been stimulated by a doggedcampaign launched by activist and journalist Anuj Dhar andauthor Chandrachur Ghose for declassifying archival documents

3/4/2015 Fundamental conflicts in Indian nationhood: Gandhi vs revolutionaries

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/subhas­chandra­bose­fundamental­conflicts­in­indian­nationhood­gandhi­vs­revolutionaries/story/1/2356.html 17/19

concerning the disappearance of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. Myknowledge of Netaji has substantially enhanced through theresearch conducted by their team. Above and beyond, they areshowing us yet again how one ought to pursue a worthy causeregardless of the odds of success. Last, but not the least, thissequence will be my homage to the Bacchera of 1940 and all thoselike him who would never deign to remind us:

When you go home, tell them of us and say For their tomorrow,we gave our today.

Bibliography:

[1] Ali Kulfi, The Chachnamah­an ancient history of Sind,Translated by Mirza Kalichbeg, 1900, Reprinted by Rana Saad,2004

[2] Prarthana Pravachan: Part I, CWOMG, Vol. 87, pp. 394­5

[3] "Talk with refugees, April 4, 1947" mahatma Gandhi The LastPhase II, p. 97, CWOMG, vol . 87,

[4] Speech at prayer meeting, April 7, 1947, Prarthana PravachanPart I pp. 32­35, CWOMG, vol 87

[5] May 1, 1947, Prarthana Pravachan: Part I, pp. 54­8, CWOMG,Vol. 87, pp. 394­5

[6] Prayer meeting, April 6, 1947, New Delhi, CWMG Vol. 94 page249

[7] I M. Sharma, Role of Revolutionaries in the Freedom Struggle,Marxist Study forum, Hyderabad, 1987

[8] Speech at a military review of the Indian National Army (5

3/4/2015 Fundamental conflicts in Indian nationhood: Gandhi vs revolutionaries

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/subhas­chandra­bose­fundamental­conflicts­in­indian­nationhood­gandhi­vs­revolutionaries/story/1/2356.html 18/19

WriterSASWATI SARKAR @sarkar_swati

Feminist, agnostic, politically bipartisan,Indian,

Bengali, socially progressive, follows Hindu human

July 1943)

[9] http://www.revivaloftrueindia.com/2012/10/madan­lal­dhingra.html

[10] Ramesh Chandra Majumdar ``History and Culture of theIndian people ­ Vol. XI ­ The Struggle For Freedom''

[11] Abhas Chatterjee "The Concept of Hindu Nation" Voice ofIndia, 1995

[12] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Text­of­RSS­chief­Mohan­Bhagwats­Vijayadashami­speech/articleshow/44199148.cms

[13] M.K. Gandhi. Hind Swaraj, Hindu Dharma, Ahmedabad 1950

[14] Paul R Bass The partition of India and retributive genocide inthe Punjab, 1946­47: means, methods, and purposes". Journal of genocide Research. p. 75 (5(1), 71­101, 2003

[15] Brig J P Dalvi, Himalayan Blunder ­ The curtain raiser to theSino Indian war of 1962

[16] https://dikgaj.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/counterthoughts­4­bharatya­nationhood­and­yogendra­yadavs­neo­stracheyism/

#Jinnah, #Pakistan, #Mohan Bhagwat, #Subhas Chandra Bose

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect theofficial policy or position of DailyO.in or the India Today Group. The writers are solely responsible for anyclaims arising out of the contents of this article.

3/4/2015 Fundamental conflicts in Indian nationhood: Gandhi vs revolutionaries

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/subhas­chandra­bose­fundamental­conflicts­in­indian­nationhood­gandhi­vs­revolutionaries/story/1/2356.html 19/19

& legal rights, student of Hindu history and

engineering acade.

Reply

Sign In with or to comment

COMMENTPRALAY KUMAR TEWARY @10153176356152953

An eye opener for me. Hat's off Saswati Sarkar...