INDIAN CULTURAL NATIONALISM IN THE ERA OF POST MODERNISM
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhj_ks4Wmk5wBlJKPqwQW68oSbsCn-6WQCPSDhyX7PnACi_83Fh0sjL0Oe3jx1gOvgGfed0eSExYn721bDMJPXf9dtsYzxOJ-_xWQehTjFgGHYLCDO-Hgy7YOFiU4JkzI04Zy-obmq3qT4S/s1600/bcp.jpg)
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)
No comments:
Post a Comment