Jawaharlal Nehru's Discovery as an idea of India

Vinod Kumar Jawaharlal Nehru's Discovery as an Idea of India The Discovery of India (1946) was written during the culmination of India's freedom struggle against the British colonial rule. Understandably, it views Indian history and culture from a particular standpoint in a specific historical context. The book is also a response to Hindu cultural nationalism, particularly as propounded by Sri Aurobindo who had discursively constructed India as a mystical, religious and spiritual entity. Nehru, on the other hand, offers a secular and liberal vision of India. No doubt, he also romanticizes India's cultural history in his project of shaping India as a nation and nation-state. As the title of the book indicates, Nehru appears to be proceeding on the assumption that India needs to be "discovered". Consequently, the book is an attempt to "discover" India from Nehru's specific historical position. It was written in the post-war period; the Second World War had ended in 1945. Nehru writes that the people of India were disoriented at this historical juncture (390-95). In response to this situation, he takes up the responsibility to define the meaning of India to the Indian people and the world. In the concluding paragraph of the “Preface” (xiii-iv), he admits that the writing is the product of time and conditions. The purpose of writing the book is indicated in the concluding paragraph of its “Postscript” (633-34) in which Nehru states that for the people of India freedom is the primary condition to live with authenticity. He adds that it is the time of general elections in India and calls upon the people to participate with enthusiasm in order to establish and celebrate their freedom. It may be noted that the book was written in prison, where Nehru had no easy access to the external situation in the country, as the newspapers carried censored news (2). It may be noted here that the Communist Party of India was founded in1920 after which, as Nehru remarks, he turned to a serious reading of Marxist literature. This probably sharpened his socialist vision. Commenting on the Communist Party of India, he writes that “. . . in India the Communist Party is completely divorced from, and is ignorant of, the national traditions that fill the minds of the people” (575). In fact, he denounces the superficial advocates of modernity “who talk glibly of modernism and modern spirit and the essence of Western culture . . . [but] are ignorant of their own culture” (576). Nehru observes, “[o]ne of the remarkable developments of the present age has been the rediscovery of the past and of the nation” (574). The Discovery of India is thus offered as a work which would contribute to the idea of India as a nation. Nehru envisages a new India, but it is not seemingly very different from the India of Hindu cultural nationalism. Like Aurobindo and other cultural nationalists, Nehru believes that there is an essential India which requires to be "discovered" through a study of the past: "The roots of that present lay in the past and so I made voyages of discovery into the pasts. . ." (Nehru The Discovery 10). Yet he also wants India to break with much of her past (567). He admits that “[n]ational progress can . . . neither lie in a repetition of the past nor in its denial” (576). Importantly, Nehru claims that he does not believe in religious or spiritual theories and that his approach is fundamentally rational and materialistic. He observes: Spiritualism with its so called manifestations of spirits and the like has always seemed to me a rather absurd and impertinent way of investigating psychic phenomena and the mysteries of the after-life . . . I am interested in this world, in this life, not in some other world or a future life. Whether there is such a thing as soul, or whether there is a survival after death or not, I do not know. (15) He also states that he does not believe in what is mysterious, and cannot call it God because God is supposed to have many meanings which he does not believe in. He further states that he is attracted by Mahatma Gandhi’s ethical stress on the right means (16). His focus is man, and according to him, “there is something godlike in man, as there is also something of the devil in him” (21). He believes in the scientific materialistic theories of development and accordingly wants India to become a superpower with the help of science and technology rather than spirituality.* Defining nationalism and explaining its importance, Nehru observes that "[n]ationalism is essentially a group memory of past achievements, traditions, and experiences and nationalism is stronger today than it has ever been" [and] ". . . [o]ne of the remarkable developments of the present age has been the rediscovery of the past and of the nation" (573-74). However, Nehru is not a revivalist, for he asks the Indians to shun orthodoxy and instead use science and technology for the development of the nation. His synthesizing vision embraces the past as well as the future, the ideal as well as the real: "She [India] is a myth and an idea, a dream and a vision, and yet very real and present and pervasive" (627-28). Clearly, Nehru's nationalism is tinged with idealism yet it is rooted in historical and materialistic reality. It is in the third chapter of the book titled "The Quest" (40-63) that Nehru fully begins his treatment of India as a subject, which allows us an insight into his characteristic approach. He states that he is in search of India which is distinct from its physical and geographical aspects (40). He tries to imagine India in terms of its glorious past and its great strength which is now, in his view, somewhat lost. He even forms an emotional affinity with his idea of India: "India was in my blood and there was much in her that instinctively thrilled me" (41). He shows that he is very much an Indian and claims to correct its weaknesses by observing it from an external position and wants to change it according to the challenges and opportunities of modernity (41). Nehru surveys India’s past, its rivers, old monuments and old ruins, ancient sculptures, frescoes - Ajanta, Ellora, the Elephanta Caves, the historical structures of Agra, Fatehpur Sikri, and Delhi, the bath festivals of Allahabad and Hardwar, Ashoka’s pillars, etc. In comparison to the beautiful past, he finds the present condition of India to be unhappy; and this is the consequence of the British rule in India, according to him. He states that “[t]he hundred and eighty years of British rule in India were just one of the unhappy interludes in her history” (44). The contrasting pictures articulate his anti-colonial perceptions and stretch out also his post-colonial idea of India. In the section "The Search for India" (49-52), Nehru expresses his dissatisfaction with books, old monuments and other cultural achievements because these do not answer his search of India. Significantly, the search leads him to the Indian people who, to his socialist mind, appear as the real India. Thus he goes on to construct India from his characteristic ideological position. He denies that he idealizes the conception of masses (50), though in the section "Bharat Mata" (52-54) he clearly does that. Delineating the problems of Indian life (poverty, debt, landlords, moneylenders, heavy rents and taxes, and police harassment), he remarks that they are the result of the foreign rule (53). He constructs a new image of Bharat Mata which can be contrasted with that visualized by Sri Aurobindo. For Hindu cultural nationalists, Bharat Mata is the Shakti, visualized as a stereotypical Bengali woman. For example, Aurobindo writes: Mother India is not a piece of earth, she is a power, a Godhead, for all the nations have such a Devi supporting their separate existence and keeping it in being. Such beings are real and more permanently real than the men they influence, but they belong to a higher plane. . ." ("Sri Aurobindo on Mother India" 1). Nehru's idea of India is diametrically opposed to Sri Aurobindo's. He writes, "Bharat Mata, Mother India, [is] essentially these millions of people, and the victory to her meant victory to these people. You are parts of this Bharat Mata" (53). This identification of the country with the people makes him a committed democrat and anti-fascist. In the section “The Variety and Unity of India” (54-56), Nehru celebrates the unity in diversity of India, and appeals Indians to struggle to show and maintain this unity. His description of Indian life with its “essential unity”, which, according to him, continues “throughout [the] ages”, suggests an essentializing impulse (55), but in the concluding paragraph of the section he states that India does not mean only one thing; every Indian has his or her own vision of India, he avers. The fourth chapter titled “The Discovery of India” (64-137) deals with ancient India which, according to Nehru was rich in culture. Discussing the Indus Valley civilization, he states that it was highly developed that India must be counted among the highly civilized countries such as Persia, Mesopotamia, and Egypt of ancient times (64-67). He then traces the history of the arrival of the Aryans in India: We might say that the first great cultural synthesis and fusion took place between the incoming Aryans and the Dravidians, who were probably the representatives of the Indus Valley civilization. Out of this synthesis and fusion grew the Indian races and the basic Indian culture, which had distinctive elements of both. (69) He adds that in the following periods many other "races" also entered in India, such as the Iranians, the Greeks, the Parthians, the Bactrians, the Scythians, the Huns, the Turks (before Islam), the early Christians, the Jews, and the Zoroastrians, who made a difference to the Indian life and enriched the fusion called Indian culture (69). One notices that Nehru's understanding of the cultural history of India is basically secular and liberal. He deems it incorrect to use the terms "Hindu" or "Hinduism" for Indian culture, and states that “[t]he word is clearly derived from Sindhu, the old, as well as the present, Indian name for the Indus. From this Sindhu came the words Hindu and Hindustan, as well as Indus and India” (70). The use of word “Hindu” for a religion is a very late occurrence, according to him. The old term used for religion in India was Arya Dharma. Defining Dharma, he writes that it means something more than religion. It is from a root word which means to hold together; it is the inmost constitution of a thing, the law of its inner being. It is an ethical concept which includes the moral code, righteousness, and the whole range of man’s duties and responsibilities. (70) Writing about Sanatana Dharma, he argues that the term can be applied to any ancient Indian faith, including Buddhism and Jainism, and notes that today it has been wrongly monopolized by some orthodox groups who claim to follow the ancient faith. He particularly points out that Buddhism and Jainism are also products of Indian culture, so it is wrong to identify Indian culture only with Hindu culture (70). He remarks that it is difficult to define Hinduism because of its internal diversity and finds useful Mahatma Gandhi’s view of Hinduism as a search for truth. And he argues that “[t]he correct word for ‘Indian’, as applied to country or culture or the historical continuity of our varying traditions, is ‘Hindi’, from ‘Hind’, a shortened form of Hindustan” (71). While not falling into the usual trap of admiring everything in Indian culture, he also avoids the opposite trap of regarding Indian culture as outdated and merely 'metaphysical'. He offers modern and secular readings of some of the important Indian cultural texts. Referring to those who look upon Vedas as revealed scriptures, he states that such pre-defined notions spoil forestall an understanding of their real significance (75). The real significance of Vedas lies in ". . . the unfolding of the human mind in the earliest stages of thought" (75). Similarly, Upnishads deal with the search for truth in terms of freedom (89). Mahabharata, he observes, teaches us not to do to others what we would not like others to do to us. Likewise, he sums up Bhagwad Gita as ". . . [a] call to action to meet the obligations and duties of life, but always keeping in view [the] spiritual background and the larger purpose of universe" (109). As for the teachings of Gautam Buddha and Mahavir Jain he says they help us to be good human beings. He also writes briefly on the importance of the six systems of Indian philosophy - Nyaya, Vaishesika, Samkhya, Yoga, Mimasa, and Vedanta (192-202). It is important that Nehru's interpretive framework with regard to the above texts is ethical and social, not narrowly religious and metaphysical. If, on the one hand, Nehru forges his understanding of India through a critical engagement with the cultural nationalist vision of Indian culture, he systematically refutes, on the other hand, the derogatory British colonial representations of India. He finds it questionable to regard India as spiritually great though fallen now in many other respects. He argues that spiritual splendor cannot be an excuse for misery and slavery (78). He notes that the Western domination has affected the Indian people very adversely. He invokes the inner strength of the people so they would not be dazzled by the power and glory of the colonial empire. Thus he strategically glorifies India's past culture in order to tell the Indian people that they are not inferior to any people in any way. In addition, he celebrates the rich and diverse culture of the masses. As an accomplished historian himself, he questions the histories of India written by British historians and points out that these are imperial distortions (103). In the section “Synthesis and Adjustment: The Beginning of the Caste System” (81-84), Nehru discusses the assimilation of Aryans in India and their impact on Indian culture and life. The caste was one of the major institutions which appeared with their arrival, according to him. He states that the Aryans considered themselves superior and the feeling of superiority generated a wide gulf between the Dravidians and the Aryans. The conflict between the aboriginal tribes, the Dravidians, and the Aryans resulted in the caste system, according to him (81). “Arya”, according to him, means “to till”. It is notable that for cultural nationalists like Aurobindo, Arya meant a noble person but Nehru reads a different meaning in it. Of course, he also adds that it came to mean 'noble'. The further division of functions and specializations produced the new castes. Considering the castes on the basis of functions, he states that Brahmins, as priests and thinkers, were supposed to be the guides of the nation (82). He argues that along with thinkers, philosophers and religious leaders, many scientists and mathematicians contributed to the making of India in ancient times. Nehru ends the fourth chapter by enumerating the merits of ancient Indian culture. In Nehru's opinion, India was always a good country for foreign invaders as it always gave them more than they gave to India. Akbar found India to be "a remarkably fine country" (277) and preferred to live here. He adopted India as his own country, and with his efforts a common culture started to develop again. Nehru approves of the Mughal rule generally because the Mughals were Indianised and contributed to the development of a common culture, which is the core of Indian nationalism according to Nehru. But, he argues that the British arrival uprooted Indian life in many ways as the “British remained outsiders, aliens and misfits in India” (254-55). Nehru notes that Hindu nationalism started to emerge with Shivaji: "Shivaji was the symbol of a resurgent Hindu nationalism, drawing inspiration from the old classics, courageous, and possessing high qualities of leadership" (294). However, here Nehru also disapproves of aggressive Hindu nationalism because it "comes in the way of the larger nationalism which rises above differences of religion or creed" (293). The Mughal Empire started to crumble in the years after the death of Aurangzeb in 1707 and the British started to enter the country. They were superior in political and military organization and befooled the local Indian powers, taking the advantage of their disunity. They became stronger with the possession of Bengal after the Battle of Plassey. Significantly, he writes that two Englands together entered India - one in the form of East India Company in 1600, the other ". . . [the] England of Shakespeare and Milton, of noble speech and writing and brave deed, of political revolution and the struggle for freedom, of science and technical progress. . ." (312). Here he finds useful the second England in the formation of modern nationalism in India. In Nehru's discourse British colonial interests also seen as having played a major role in the formation of modern India. In the chapter "The Last Phase (1): Consolidation of British Rule and Rise of Nationalist Movement" (313-389), he states that as Indian history was written from the British point of view, the newspapers in India were full of British official news and culture; they did not carry a single word for India, Indian life or people (319). He notes that India was as much as manufacturing country as it was agriculturist; but it was the British who reduced it to an agriculturist country only in order to develop their own industry (326). The destruction of village industry and the introduction of the landlord system ruined the rural life of India. The Britishers created big landlords on English pattern and created “a class whose interests were identified with them” (331). Nehru observes that it was the first time in history that India lost its freedom, while in the past many conquerors had come but they had made India their home (328). The industrial revolution in England particularly upset the Indian economy and social life, which in turn contributed to the rise of nationalism. Thus, according to Nehru, “India had to bear the cost of her own conquest, and then of her transfer from the East India Company to the British Crown (332). Nehru writes that Bengal was the centre of the British administration, and so it was the place in India where nationalism started to emerge. The better-informed people started to lead Indian masses, and through their ". . . efforts the new nationalist movement ultimately took shape" (342). He writes that the printing press and other machinery were seen by the orthodox as bad for the Indian mind, yet with the efforts of Ram Mohan Roy and other nationalists the first Indian press was founded. Nehru notes that printing technology widely circulated the ideas of nation and nationalism. His words prefigure Benedict Anderson’s comprehensive study titled Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (1983) in which Anderson states that "the very idea of 'nation' is now nestled firmly in virtually all print-languages; and nation-ness is virtually inseparable from political consciousness" (135). Nehru does not give much space to Hindu nationalism in his study because his main focus in the book is on the nationalism as articulated by the Congress. He writes that “[t]he national movement as represented essentially by the National Congress, undoubtedly represents the historic process of growth towards [. . .] new ideas and institutions” (385). With the emergence of the Congress, “a new type of leadership appeared, more aggressive and defiant and representing the much larger numbers of the lower middle classes as well as students and young men” (387). The chapter “The Last Phase (2): Nationalism versus Imperialism” (390-458) is a glorification of the Congress and its nationalism. Nehru finds the middle class to be rootless, leaderless and confused; for this class, Mahatma Gandhi came as a messiah. Nehru depicts Gandhi as the champion of Indian nationalism who showed the path of freedom and nationalism to Indian people through truth and non-violence. He is of the view that Congress became a dynamic organization under Gandhi's leadership because he suggested a two-fold action - one to resist the British rule and the other to fight social evils. In his speech on the day of independence, Nehru expresses his gratitude by stating that “Mahatma Gandhi is fortunately with us to guide and inspire and ever to point out to us the path of high endeavor” (Nehru Nehru’s India 149). It can be said that Nehru's idea of India took shape under the guiding influence of Mahatma Gandhi, particularly of his theories of equality, justice, human dignity. Nehru arguably aimed to translate his idea of India into practice through the policies of the Congress after formation of Congress provincial governments in 1937, and after independence by means of the National Planning Commission. Partha Chatterjee comments on the significance of the Commission in the formation of the post-independence Indian nation: "the very institution of a process of planning became a means for the determination of priorities on behalf on the "nation"" (201-02). However, Perry Anderson writes that no adequate efforts were made to make good Nehru's promises after independence even by the Nehruvian government; no election was held till 1951-1952. Anderson points out how the rested interests prevailed against the broader national interests: [t]he record of Nehru’s regime, whose priorities were industrial development and military spending, was barren of any such impulse. No land reform worthy of mention was attempted. No income tax was introduced till 1961. Primary education was grossly neglected. As a party, Congress was controlled by a coalition of rich farmers, traders and urban professionals, in which the weight of its agrarian bosses was greatest, and its policies reflected the interests of these groups, unconcerned with the fate of the poor. (110) Discussing the Hindu-Muslim issue during partition, Nehru tries to put blame on Mohammad Ali Jinnah. He writes that he tried many times to communicate with Jinnah but failed because of his intransigence (The Discovery 431). He blames Jinnah for insisting on two states. Nehru notes that it is not easy to define a nation; if Jinnah defined a nation on a religious basis, there would not be two but numerous nations in India (431-32). However Perry Anderson is of the view that “Congress made no serious effort to register or come to terms politically with the Muslim League” (146). Nehru even remarks that Congress does not represent only the nationalist urge but also the proletarian urge for social change. Condemning the religious fanatical organizations, he states that they are “closely associated with the feudal and conservative elements and [are] opposed to any revolutionary social change” (The Discover 434). This was, obviously, his way of distinguishing his own secular liberal brand of nationalism from that of the revival Hindu nationalists. In various sections of the ninth chapter and the last chapter titled “Ahmadnagar Fort Again” (532-632), Nehru sketches the confusion, disturbance, mass upheavals, revolts, and suppression in India. He states that the British have always rejected the various proposals made by the Congress and have tried to suppress the Indian struggle for freedom at any cost. In these chapters, Nehru appears to be projecting Gandhi as the only champion of Indian freedom; he does not concede much space to other freedom fighters. The struggle for freedom, In Nehru's discourse, is interlaced with the struggle for power, as he himself writes that “[t]he real question was the transfer of power to the National Government” (515). In the last parts of the last chapter Nehru goes on to describe his plans to develop India as a strong nation. He proposes getting rid of the narrow religious outlook which promotes mystification and irrationality (579). He rejects the dream of some Muslim hardliners for an Islamic theocracy, and rejects equally the Hindu orthodox call to go back to Vedas. “[T]here is no turning back . . . [and] [t]here is only one-way traffic in Time”, according to him (579). He wants India to turn from religiosity to science. He also states that we are too much in the bondage of set phrases, slogans, traditions, ideologies derived from past which have little relevance today (592). He advocates the modern approach to economy, defence, education, industry, transport and communication. He also states that the tendency to self-glorification is undesirable; life cannot be approached sentimentally or emotionally but only by courageously facing the realities (625). Talking about his ‘discovery of India’ in “Epilogue” (627-32), he celebrates his conception of ‘India’s unity in diversity’. While Nehru claims to be rational, scientific, and modern in outlook yet his treatment of Indian history is far from satisfactory. Perry Anderson comments that The Discovery of India shows not only “Nehru’s lack of formal scholarship and addiction to romantic myth, but something deeper, not so much an intellectual but a psychological limitation – a capacity for self-deception with far reaching political consequences” (53). It may be stated that Nehru's narrative of the "discovery" of India as a nation ranges from the ancient period to his own times. It has been noted already that Nehru's narrative is not chronological but fragmentary, and its focus is not historical but cultural and political. This is arguably so because his aim is to present a specific idea of India in accordance with his understanding of the nationalist project in the given historical context. Accordingly, The Discovery of India is a mix of selective historical narrative, a critical reflection on social institutions, and a catalogue cultural achievements and political criticism. Clearly, this idea of India is different from Hindu cultural nationalists. Nehru’s idea is of an India that is a historically evolving social, cultural, political and economic entity; and it is essentially identified with the masses of India. Ironically, there is a fracture in Nehru's discourse between his idea of India and its relationship to the masses in so far as the India he discusses does not take into account the common people's India. Nehru’s narrative is elitist and homogeneous; its silences and gaps demand “subaltern” rewritings of history. * Regarding the influence of socialist ideas on him, he writes: "A study of Marx and Lenin produced a powerful effect on my mind and helped me to see history and current affairs in a new light" (The Discovery 16). Works Cited Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 2003. Print. Anderson, Perry. The Indian Ideology. Gurgaon: Three Essays Collective, 2012. Print. Aurobindo, Sri. "Sri Aurobindo on Mother India". The Culture of the Telugu People of India. Web. 4 July 2011. <http://cltridtelug.tk/sri-aurobindo-on-mother-india> - - -. The Renaissance in India and Other Essays on Indian Culture. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Publication Department, 1997. Print. Chatterjee, Partha. The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. Delhi: OUP, 1994. Print. Gandhi, Mahatma. Hind Swaraj. Delhi: Rajpal, 2010. Print. Nehru, Jawaharlal. Nehru’s India: Select Speeches. Ed. Mushirul Hasan. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print. - - -. The Discovery of India. New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2004. Print. PAGE 12