MORE than sixty years have passed since India gained its independence, but it has yet to join the ranks of the developed countries. That is a dream still to be realized; and this in spite of India being a large country teeming with potential.
One reason for this tragic failure is the Indian people’s lack of national character. The majority of the deficiencies we find in the country today can be traced to this basic shortcoming. Bereft of this sterling quality, we have fallen short in taking the country towards progress and prosperity.
National character is the capacity and the will to hold the interests of the nation supreme in every sphere.
What is national character? It is, to put it simply, the capacity and the will to hold the interests of the nation supreme in every sphere. Whenever there is a clash between individual and national interests, it means individual concerns being subordinated to the greater good of the nation. Whenever a nation has made any progress, it has been due to this spirit of nationalism. Without such a spirit, no nation can advance itself either internally or externally.
Now, the question that arises is: why, during this same period, many other countries such as Singapore, Korea, Malaysia and Japan, etc have succeeded in fostering a strong, national spirit in their people, and now stand alongside developed countries, while India still lags far behind.
There is one basic reason for this: attempting to achieve the possible by means which are impossible. Producing national spirit or character in India is certainly possible. It is just that we have set off on the wrong track, and once on it, it is difficult to retrace our steps and get on to the right track.
After independence, an 'Indian nation' had come into existence in the political and geographical sense. But, at the psychological level — the level of feelings and emotions — our position has still been that of a nation-in-the-making. For the desired national reconstruction to take place, our leaders proposed a recipe based on the concept of a common heritage with three main parts: religious unity, historical unity and cultural unity.
Religious unity implied that all religions were essentially one. It was believed that if this concept could take root in people’s minds, it would produce a sense of unity all over the country. Historically, of course, this assumption was wrong; there is a long, sorry record of co-religionists fighting fiercely among themselves.
For instance, in the war of Mahabharata, warriors on both sides were of the Hindu religion. In the first and second world wars, combatants on both sides were of the Christian faith. Babar had armed confrontations with his own co-religionists, finally inflicting decisive defeats on them. And so on.
The attempt to bring about religious unity in India has had active support right from the time of Akbar, who bolstered it politically, to recent times, when intellectuals such as Dr. Bhagwan Das (a contemporary of Jawaharlal Nehru) attempted to solve the problem with their encyclopaedic knowledge of the subject. But this goal could never be achieved for the simple reason the assumption that all religions are one and the same is incorrect; and no durable structure can be erected on false premises. It is an undeniable fact that there are differences between the various religions.
Whenever there is a clash between individual and national interests, individual concerns must be subordinated to the greater good of the nation.
Given these differences, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the adherents of one religion to reach the point of agreeing that the tenets and practices of another religion have an equal value. However, if the adherents of different religions see each other first and foremost, as human beings, as members of the same human race, they can certainly accord each other equal respect. Through mutual respect, many social benefits can accrue which would be rendered impossible in the wake of futile attempts at mutual recognition of religious beliefs.
Let us now look at how history comes into the picture. It is assumed that even where there are people of different persuasions, a common sense of history will produce a common sense of nationhood. And where such a sense is seen to be lacking, it is advocated that it be inculcated. But this would again be an attempt to achieve the possible by means which are impossible.
All countries, be they as small as Singapore, or as large as the US, are inhabited by varied races and ethnic groups. In this respect there are several different strands to their historical heritage. But in none of these countries has there been any attempt to bulldoze people into sharing a common sense of history.
Instead, there has been an acknowledgment of each citizen’s individuality. That is why, albeit imbued with different historical feelings, various groups lead harmonious lives and are engaged in the common cause of nation building.
The third point concerns the acceptance of a common culture. This is wholly impracticable. Culture inevitably evolves a long historical process. It can never be imposed upon a group through any external agency.
The only practicable basis of nationhood is patriotism.
After the Second World War, a movement was launched in the US to produce a common culture throughout the country by a process of Americanization. A similar movement was launched in Canada, but in both countries, these initiatives were a failure. Ultimately both had to abandon the idea of uni-culture and come to terms with multi-culture. In India, as elsewhere, this is the only possible solution.
The truth is that the only practicable basis of nationhood is patriotism. That is, the feeling on the part of the individual or group that their future is linked with one country and one country alone; that individual success is inextricably linked with the progress of the country; that the interests of the country must be held supreme, and that if sacrifices are required for the safety or advancement of the country, they must be made willingly. Without such feelings of patriotism as are defined here, no country can be run successfully.
If the task of constructing the nation is to be successfully accomplished, we must rid ourselves of our obsession with such impracticable concepts as unity of religion, history and culture, and should forge ahead on the same lines as Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Britain, France and America.
Individual success is inextricably linked with the progress of the country.
Our prime target should be generating patriotism in our country. And it should be a patriotism which is based not on the past, but on the present and the future. The only way to do this is to instil in each and every individual a deep-rooted love of his country.
If we set ourselves sedulously to such tasks as these, we should, within the span of one generation, be able to create for ourselves the ideal nation.
