Religious nationalism invents its own history: Romila

In order to underline the greatness of the community that it is supporting, religious nationalism accuses the historian's history of bias and invents its own, argues one of India's leading public intellectuals Romila Thapar.
In an exclusive interview, Thapar, who has co-authored a new book "On Nationalism" with A G Noorani and Sadanand Menon, talks of nationalism, pseudo-nationalism and what type of nationalism is best suited to our country.
In the book, published by Aleph, the authors provide calm and measured insights into the origins, nature, practice and future of Indian nationalism.
Thapar is of the view that by inventing its own history, religious nationalism in a sense creates its own mythology that draws in current issues.

"An analysis of such mythologies would provide an added explanation for their need in current politics. The target of hostility in religious nationalism is not the coloniser but the competitor for power. Therefore in this nationalism antagonism is directed towards an insider," she says.
In comparison, secular nationalism tends to use history as researched by historians, and tries to avoid fantasies about the past.

"Where secular nationalism is also anti-colonial nationalism as it often was in ex-colonies, there the hostility is directed against the colonial power which is external to the society, and in many cases is culturally alien. Hostility towards the coloniser helped to bind the groups participating in this nationalism," says the historian.

Asked why is it important to understand what nationalism means, she says, "Since we are a nation it is important to understand how this came about and what it is that keeps us together as a nation."
She terms nationalism as a phenomenon of modern times and early forays into such thinking and acting date to about the last three centuries.
"In India they came somewhat later. Historical changes brought about new aspirations and these took shape in various ways, one of which was nationalism. It is important to understand that nationalism as a movement and a concept does not go back to ancient times, although the heritage and history that contributes to the idea of nationalism may well be earlier.

The aim of nationalism, according to Thapar, is to include
everyone as equals and to establish a state that concerns itself with the welfare of all its citizens.
"Pseudo-nationalism consists of those movements that build on identity politics, and give priority to members of a particular religious community as citizens. It is also referred to as religious nationalism, communal nationalism and even fascist communalism.
"It is rooted in British histories of India that became hegemonic that had argued for a Hindu and a Muslim nation permanently antagonistic to each other. Pseudo-nationalism is therefore hostile to contemporary historical research that has shown the flaws in this colonial argument."

According to Thapar, the Muslim League wanted a state where primacy was to be given to Muslims, as in Pakistan.
"The Hindu Mahasabha and its successor organizations want a state where primacy is given to Hindus, as in the proposed Hindu Rashtra. These are not movements that support the equal status of all citizens, and that support identities that are inclusive of all citizens.
"They have to be qualified by the particular community and identity to which they are giving priority. Some historians refuse to call them nationalisms and there is a point to this argument since they are not committed to the equality of all."

Asked about the difference between the nationalism that prevailed at Independence and the nationalism we see today, she says, "Nationalism at the time of Independence was concerned with how the nation was to be constructed so as to ensure that every Indian citizen had equal rights in terms of entitlements to a life of dignity, and that every Indian citizen was guaranteed social justice.
"Hence the concern of the first government - among other things - was with founding the nation on a constitution that would endorse a secular democracy and give meaning to citizenship, and with attempting to build an economy that would ensure the welfare of all. The intention and concern was apparent and there was some movement in the direction of building a nation."

But today, Thapar says, both politicians and society seem to have discarded these early intentions.
"We are trying to remove secularism from the constitution so that the concept of democracy is seriously damaged, and we are doing little that is practical in the way of expunging the overwhelming poverty of half the citizens of this country.
"Today, little is said about the serious programme of nationalism and we are left with having to shout slogans that were invented a hundred and fifty years ago, and have little relevance to the problems that we face as a nation," she says.
"In every nation where there has been a plurality of

cultures - and this refers to religions, language, law and custom - there is bound to be a shared history that arises from the sheer fact of cultures co-existing and inter-acting. A shared history does not necessarily mean no contentions, but it does mean our having to study how co-existence was negotiated in the past and how it is to be negotiated in the present with the coming of the nation."
Pseudo-nationalism, because it gives a special status to one community, has therefore got to deny a shared history and re-iterate repeatedly that there were sharp divisions among the groups that constituted society in the past, irrespective of whether there were these divisions or not and what was the nature of the divisions, she argues.

"In order to strengthen the Hindu majority community it is claimed that it was victimised by later Muslim conquerors, and Hindus were slaves for a thousand years, a claim that allows the victimised to seek revenge. This justifies destroying the Babri Masjid for a start.
"These arguments are used to condemn those that are seen as the descendants of the victimizers. This is intended to fuel a political ideology. It is an exaggeration even of nineteenth century colonial views much given to the two-nation theory."
The last thousand years, looked at historically, have been a remarkable period in which people from a range of cultures, Hindu and non-Hindu, contributed to the richness and creativity of the sects that went into the making of Hinduism, she says.

"It was also a period of material prosperity for upper-caste Hindus and Muslims, who therefore became patrons of literature and the arts. What resulted is strikingly impressive.