INDIAN CULTURAL NATIONALISM IN THE ERA OF POST MODERNISM 

                  

The ethos of Indian culture goes deep into the concept of humanity. The Indian concept of nationalism is very different from the western interpretation. The post modernism concept appears to be against the concept of nationalism of western thinkers. But as far as the Indian concept is concerned, our nationalism that is called the cultural nationalism is a far broader concept. The motto of Indian culture is ‘Vasudhaib kutumbakam’, where we don’t talk about partitions and boundaries.

Our ancient epic Rigveda says, “San gacchadhwam, san badadhwam, san wo manansi janatam. Deva bhagam yatha purve, sanjanana upasate.”

                                                                          ( Rigveda 10-191-2)

These are the soul and mantra of our cultural nationalism. It means, O human being ! walk unitedly, speak unitedly, your mind should think unitedly. As your ancestors accepted their parts unitedly, you also accept your parts unitedly.

Our one constant prayer all through the ages has been, ‘Sarve api sukhina santu sarve santu niramaya’, which means let everyone be free from all ills.

West has not been able to go beyond the motto of the ‘greatest good of the greatest number’. We have never tolerated the idea of single human being-why, of even a single living organism-being measurable. ‘Total good of all beings’ has always been our glorious ideal.

The ideology of integral humanism was developed by Pandit Deen dayal Upadhyaya. The philosophy of integral humanism seeks unity in diversity and an integrated view of both society and individual. Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, who could conceive of the state authority with stateism, envisaged the evolution of the worlds state enriched by the growth and contribution of different national cultures, as well as the flowering of the Manava Dharma, enriched by the perfection of all the religions, including materialism.

Golwalkar believed that the world unity and human welfare can be made real only to the extent mankind realises the ultimate, absolute vedantic truth that, ‘all is one’. What he implied was not elimination of all distinctive features of nations and rolling them all into one uniform pattern. He visualized various groups of people coming together in a spirit of familism realising the innate oneness of mankind while preserving their individual identities and special characteristics. The different human groups are marching forward, all towards the same goal, each in its own way and in keeping with its own characteristics genius. The destruction of the special characteristics, weather of an individual or of a group, will destroy not only the natural beauty of harmony but also its joy of self expression. To seek harmony among the various and diverse characteristics has been our special contribution of the world thought.

Bipin Chandra Pal defined nationality as ‘personality’ of people rather than ‘individuality’ of a people as defined by Mazzini. Personality is derived from latin word ‘Persona’, meaning a mask. Personality implies therefore, not isolation but only differentiation; and the difference that the concept personality implies is a difference which only breaks up uniformity in appearance or organisation but in no way destroys, or even disturbs the fundamental unity of being.

He expressed the fundamental ideas of Indian nationalism. He said, association not isolation; co-operation not competition; socialism in the highest and truest sense of the term, and not merely what it is understood to mean by the followers of Marx-this socialism and not individualism, duty and not right-these are the rudimentary concepts of our social and political philosophy. These are the fundamental ideas of Indian nationalism. Our individuality as a people is based upon these distinctive notes and marks of our thought and evolution. These are the primary factors of our differentiation from other nations of the world.

Marshall Mcluhan gave the concept of ‘global village’, David Held talks of ‘world brotherhood’, Will Kymlicka talks about ‘multiculturalism’, all these concepts are in tune with the post modernism. A. G. Frank, Ulrich Beck, Immanuel Wallerstein, Hirst, Thompson, Noam Chomsky etc criticizes globalisation because in globalisation developed countries always try to create hurdle in the development of the developing countries. They say that globalisation is anti-humanitarian.

It is true that national boundaries are losing its relevance. But the Indian cultural ethos are synonymous with the concept of global village and its principles are relevant for all times. India is a multicultural country in true sense. It displays the characteristics of a small global village in itself, where a large number of religions, ethnic groups, languages co-exist in harmony. Human face of globalisation is essential to maintain peace. Basic philosophy of Indian culture lies in accommodating diversities and peaceful co-existence.

References:

1.      Pal, Bipin Chandra, Nationality and Empire; A running study of some current Indian problems, The spirit of Indian nationalism.

2.      Golwalkar, M.S., Bunch of Thought

3.      Upadhyaya, Deen Dayal, Series of speeches, Bombay 22-25 April, 1965, published by DRI, New Delhi, Integral Humanism.

4.      Anderson, Perry. The origins of postmodernity, London, version 1998.

5.      Beck, Ulrich (1998), Risk society: Towards a new modernity.

6.      Bielskis, Andrius (2005), Towards a postmodern understanding of the political: from Genealogy to Hermeneutics (Palgrave MacMillan, 2005)

7.      Woods, Tim, Beginning Post modernism, Manchester, University press.

8.      Harvey, David, The condition of post modernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural change (ISBN 0631162941)

9.      Sokal, Alan and Jean Bricmont, Fashionable nonsense: Postmodern intellectuals Abuse of Science (ISBN 0312204078)