The worry of citizens was legitimate on another account: the ancient Indian language of Sanskrit holds the key to two doors placed at two opposite ends. Which of the two doors are opened depends on who holds the key.
One door leads to the vast literature, belonging to the millennia preceding and following Christ, on several technical topics including science, mathematics and political theory, which became the starting point for many advanced theories across various disciplines. It is estimated that even now, about thirty million texts of this rich knowledge are there in Sanskrit, the largest textual corpus of any existing human language.13
The second door leads to a specific section of the social world of Sanskrit that reeks of caste hierarchy, inequality and misogyny.14 In an essay called ‘The story of my Sanskrit’, author Ananya Vajpeyi recounts how several Sanskritists and pandits in India have been left feeling misunderstood and alienated by the modern emphasis on science and technology, and so they resent liberal values.15
If the liberal and secular community—who hold a Nehruvian view of nationalism—holds the key, they would open the first door that contains knowledge about India as her oldest and most authentic self. But if the key falls into the hands of those nursing a grudge, who are now supported by a right-wing political agenda, the effect would be starkly different.
In April 2017, a year after the inclusion of Sanskrit in the IIT curriculum, it was decreed that the ancient Indian science of architecture, vastu shastra, must also be included in the curriculum of IIT’s campus in Kharagpur.16 By teaching ‘ancient Indian architectural traditions’, it was said, the institute would train ‘well-rounded architects’. Vastu shastra was developed between 6000 BC and 3000 BC, and has roots in the Rig Veda. It involves designing buildings keeping in mind the influence of the sun’s light and heat, wind directions, the moon’s position, and Earth’s magnetic fields.
However, there is no agreement among practising architects that vastu shastra is a scientific system, or if it provides an accurate understanding of nature. Some architects have pointed out that, ‘Vastu orders spaces and buildings based on geography in a caste-oriented and patriarchal way.
For example, the spaces it assigns for women and lower castes are towards the unfavourable elements of nature, while plentiful and favourable locations are provided for the “master”.’17 On what basis did the Indian government decide to alter the education curriculum?
In 2016, the Supreme Court of India ordered all cinema halls in the country to mandatorily play India’s national anthem before the screening of any film.18 It also directed the audience to stand in respect so as to ‘instil the feeling within one a sense (of) committed patriotism and nationalism’. The order was to be followed with the utmost seriousness, so much so that the government even issued guidelines for disabled people, saying they must not move and position themselves ‘maintaining the maximum possible alertness physically’ during the time that the national anthem was played.19
Indeed, our fundamental right as Indian citizens to free speech and expression also includes the right not to speak. We cannot be forced to sing the national anthem. Shouldn’t patriotism come naturally to oneself? Can patriotism be invoked by force?
I don’t think so. The order of the Supreme Court might have ensured that cinema audiences in India now stand while the national anthem plays. However, this is motivated by people’s fear of being charged with ‘anti-nationalism’ and the heckling that follows if one does not stand rather than by any genuine feelings of nationalism.
The efforts of the ruling Indian political class have also contributed to dictating to citizens what must be considered ‘anti-nationalistic’. In early 2016 at JNU, there had been a rally to protest the 2013 hanging of Mohammed Afzal Guru, a Kashmiri separatist convicted of the 2001 Indian Parliament attack. The president of the university’s student union, Kanhaiya Kumar, was arrested and charged with sedition by the Delhi Police for allegedly raising anti-India slogans in a student rally. Kumar denied all the charges. He was later released on interim bail on 2 March 2016 for lack of conclusive evidence, but the incident launched a nationwide debate about the value of free speech and the meaning of ‘anti-nationalism’.
Would Dr B.R. Ambedkar, the man who led the writing of the Indian Constitution, be considered anti-national today? Ambedkar had an antagonistic relationship with Mahatma Gandhi and many other leaders of the freedom movement in the 1930s and 1940s. He had also rejected the Hindu religion. In 1939, Ambedkar said, ‘Whenever there is any conflict of interest between the country and the untouchables, so far as I am concerned, the untouchables’ interests will take precedence over the interests of the country,’20 a statement that, among several others, clarified his allegiance to his cause over his country. All of these actions would be considered anti-national today!
Would the same tag also be placed on Rabindranath Tagore, the brilliant poet and Nobel laureate? After all, Tagore had rather radical views on nationalism. He believed that intense love for the nation, which manifests in the conviction of national superiority and the glorification of cultural heritage, is used to justify narrow-minded national interest. Writing in 1917, Tagore said, ‘When this organization of politics and commerce, whose other name is the Nation, becomes all powerful at the cost of the harmony of higher social life, then it is an evil day for humanity.’21
And going by the reasoning rationale, would Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, also be considered anti-national? He went against the wishes of the ruler, his father, and abandoned his responsibility to govern Shakya. He must have been distinctly anti-establishment as well to have gone ahead and created a new
