Communication

ONE gets the impression that Rukmini Bhaya Nair, in her cogently and perspicaciously argued presentation (Seminar 497, January 2001) of the psychological ramification and implications of the entity called National Anthem, is not explicitly against the canard that the Indian national anthem was composed as a loyal address to King-Emperor George V. Possibly this is due to the theoretic bias of the write-up which seeks to demonstrate the power of national anthems as ‘psychological dynamos’. Nevertheless, readers would not have failed to get the intended meaning, even had the writer tried to clear the miasma of untruth which, unfortunately, still surrounds the background of our national anthem.

In any reference to India’s national anthem it must not be forgotten that Tagore actually composed a five-stanza poem, and that only the first stanza has been adopted as India’s national anthem. This canard should not have continued to live after Tagore personally, drawing attention to the third stanza of the poem, replied to the charge that the addressee was the King-Emperor. He clarified that the poem was untainted by the mundaneness of any empire or emperor, ‘That Great Charioteer of man’s Destiny in age after age could not by any means be George V, George VI or any George.’ (Quoted by R.K. Dasgupta in ‘Our National Anthem’ in R.K. Dasgupta (ed.) Our National Anthem, University of Delhi, Delhi, 1961). Tagore was a poet of mystical and religious temperament, and this poem is addressed to vidhata, God himself. It approximates the status of a hymn, which explains its inclusion as song no. 1327 in the hymn-book of the Brahmo Samaj.

One feels Rukmini Bhaya Nair should have given some more space to ‘the complicated background of this particular anthem,’ and put it in the perspective of Tagore’s philosophical framework whose operative principle was an attempt to touch the mystical and the sublime, where Destiny and Eternity move and play their roles. Such a framework just cannot have any niche for a temporal George V. The quoted lines attributed to Tagore – ‘Here is (a) poem I’ve written. It is addressed to the deity. But you may give it to the national committee. Perhaps it will content them’ – should have been deconstructed into this contextual solidity. The perspective of the poet as a religio-mystical mind deserves and cries for such a deconstruction. What is more, it would have gone a long way in having a salutary effect of trying to put an end to the canard without having any adverse impact on the general tenor of the argument.

Rukmini Bhaya Nair rightly believes that Tagore was bitterly opposed to a narrow nationalism. This belief demands that no opportunity to demolish the canard should be lost, because the refusal of this canard to die has the danger of inducing a misreading of Tagore’s cherished ideal of cosmopolitanism and playing into the hands of chauvinistic, narrow-minded and anti-liberal forces. His oeuvre forms an invaluable part of our heritage whose core is open-mindedness and forward-looking temperament. It is too precious for us to let anyone making it vulnerable to uncalled for problematization. Narrow agenda-driven forces have a tendency to misrepresent those personalities, texts and messages which are multi-layered and complex.

Every discussion involving a reference to our national anthem, short or long, should be conscious of this real danger and contribute, at least in one or two lines, to the effort to give the infamous charge its final burial.

R.P. Singh

Assistant Professor,

Government College, Lal Bahadur Nagar,

District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

 

 

THE article, ‘Sharing Dreams’ (Seminar 496) by Firdous Syed stands out among the excellent pieces on Kashmir as it is written in an autobiographical mode by a ex-Kashmiri militant/combatant who is now a National Conference MLC in Jammu and Kashmir. Syed, in an honest confession, attributes his conscious decision to leave militancy to the realisation about the futility and destructiveness of armed struggle as ‘a means to achieve our ends’ in Kashmir. The incident draws our attention to the callousness of the India state as Syed, despite his surrender and undergoing jail sentence, not to mention the disowning by fellow Kashmiris, was pressurised to prove his credentials by ‘taking to the gun, though on the other side now.’ It is to his credit that despite having such a shattering experience Syed thought in terms of trying ‘to act to intervene in civil society on the ground, so that together we could begin to turn the tide away from self-destruction towards something positive and life-giving rather than death-dealing.’

One cannot help but appreciate the steps contemplated by Syed to ‘find the right way to continue the struggle for dignity and self-respect, for peace with honour for development and change in the conditions of the people.’ Likewise, not many of us would grudge Syed when he essentialises Kashmiri masses’ urge for azadi in terms of ‘a free and democratic society, a secular and liberal society in which all of us could live in peace and without humiliation or oppression’ in tenor with ‘Kashmiriyat which is (their) civilisational ethos and identity.’

However, a problem erupts when Syed argues that there can be space for azadi within ‘the secular, democratic tradition of India itself.’ One would do well to remind Syed that the conversion of the Muslim Conference into the National Conference in 1939 was the result of an effort for broadening the mass base of the political movement in Kashmir against a feudal monarchical Dogra regime by radicalising its ideology and secularising its organisational structure. Way back in the fifties, Sheikh Abdullah, while addressing the Constituent Assembly of the state, had justified his decision to opt for India precisely for those secular democratic traditions of India which Syed mentions. In his words: ‘As a state, we are concerned mainly with agriculture and trade... are we sure that in alliance with landlord-ridden Pakistan, with so many feudal privileges intact, the economic reform will be tolerated... The most powerful argument that can be advanced in her favour is that Pakistan is a Muslim state, and so are a big majority of our people. Being a Muslim state is of course a camouflage. It is a screen to dupe the common man, so that he may not see clearly that Pakistan is a feudal state in which a clique is trying by these methods to maintain itself in power.’

It follows that Sheikh had more faith in India. He stated that, ‘India was different (from Pakistan). There were parties and individuals in India whose views were identical to ours.’ The fact that India was going through the process of Constitution-making, privileging the values of democracy, secularism, federalism and so on contributed to his and his masses’ confidence in Kashmir’s relationship with India. It was a contractual relationship based on the principle of ‘asymmetrical federalism’ guaranteeing the ethno-cultural identity of Kashmiri people vide constitutional provisions like Article 370. The logic of Kashmir’s politics, therefore, has always revolved around the demand for ‘self-rule’ and the political responses of the people have always been expressed in terms of azadi for the Kashmir mulk (country) and quam (nation).

One wishes that Syed had the courage to write about the ‘constitutional integrationist’ approach of the Indian state to the detriment of the above mentioned trust in the secular democratic tradition of the Indian Union. The State Autonomy Committee (SAC), constituted by the state government to examine and recommend measures for the restoration of the autonomy ‘consistent with the instrument of accession, the Constitution Application Order, 1950 and the Delhi Agreement of 1952’, has in its report highlighted the continuous process of erosion of the state’s autonomy by the successive Union governments. Out of 395 articles of the Indian Constitution, 260 have been made applicable to the state. Out of 97 subjects in the Concurrent List, 26 subjects and out of 12 Schedules, 7 Schedules are also applicable to the state, now due to 42nd Constitution amendment (applicable to Jammu and Kashmir) orders. (SAC Report 1999: 42-57).

The pertinent question is: How can the Kashmiri people trust a state and have effective communication with it when the same state has repeatedly justified its pursuit of ‘hegemonising’ and ‘homogenised’ politics in the name of its sovereignty and integrity (not to mention its ‘secularism’)? How can they forget that their idea of India as a federal democratic entity was understood in terms of ‘parity’ and ‘negotiability’ with the Union? No doubt, then, they are averse to the processes leading to ‘hierarchy’ and ‘assimilation’ perpetrated by the Indian state over the last five decades. One can always recall the many rigged elections in the Valley. Syed should have mentioned how the ad hoc policies of installing ‘puppet’ governments and economic appeasement aimed at buying the loyalty of the masses have boomeranged as Kashmiri people rightly feel widespread alienation resulting from decades of misgovernance, institutionalised corruption, denial of rights, and the lack of development – in sum, the very antithesis of democracy.

The above brings us to Syed’s decision to join the NC as the ‘logical next step’ ostensibly to fulfil his ‘burning desire’ for the Kashmiri people. Any discernible observer of Kashmir would argue that the NC, which came into power in 1996 after seven years of President’s rule, has done great disservice to the people’s cause in terms of their urge for peace and development. Indeed, it is a beleaguered NC government, highly unpopular because of lack of development, misgovernance and institutionalised corruption, which has diluted its original project, moving it from its ‘pristine form’ as mentioned above to the current ‘pragmatic’ talk of devolution of more powers to the state. So much for the ‘Farooq doctrine’ of accepting a subordinate relationship with the ‘Centre’.

The revival of civil society and its institutions in Kashmir can be possible only if the Indian state allows free and fair elections when the state goes to the polls for the assembly seats next year. Only a genuinely elected government can represent the people and negotiate on their behalf. For providing a democratic government accountable to the people of the state and not to the Centre, it is imperative that not only the jurisdiction of the federal, autonomous constitutional bodies and laws be retained over the state (regardless of SAC recommendations or, the Hurriyat’s demands) but also that institutions of local self-government be made more effective. The panchayat elections were held after 23 years but the Panchayati Raj Act is yet to be amended. Syed’s emphasis about the need to evolve a strategy of rural development as well as its implementation can be effectively put into concrete action only with the help of democratically empowered local self-governing bodies.

Ashutosh Kumar

Reader, Department of Political Science,

Panjab University, Chandigarh