Bharat, That Is India…

THE EVOCATIVE LINES ‘Mein Bharat ka rehne wala hoon, mein Bharat ki baat sunata hoon (I am a native of India, I tell the story of India)’ from Mahendra Kapoor’s hit song from the 1970 film Purab Aur Paschim captured a richly patriotic vein in Indian cinema. The movie’s maker and lead Manoj Kumar came to be embodied as “Bharat Kumar” in the public imagination for the films he made from the 1960s till the early 1980s. The films spoke directly to an audience of a young nation beset with serious challenges to its sovereignty and a lack of self-confidence fostered by centuries of foreign rule. In a simple and unadulterated fashion, Manoj Kumar’s films gave Indians something to cheer about in the aftermath of a demoralising defeat inflicted by China in 1962 and internal turmoil over new states and languages. They spoke of civili­sational greatness and an elevating vision of the future. ‘Hai preet jahan ki reet sada… (where peace and harmony are eternal traditions)’—songs from the films Manoj Kumar made are staples for patriotic occasions right to this day, but the theme, redolent with the clash between “Bharatiyata (Indianness)” and Western values adopted by the progressive set, surfaced often enough in Hindi cinema. The 1971, Dev Anand’s superhit Haré Rama Haré Krishna captured the sentiment, beckoning youth lost to the Hippie drug haze back to their values and cul­tural lineage. The Kishore Kumar number in the film summed it up: ‘Ram ko samjho, Krishna ko jaano O mastano (Understand Ram, know Krishna o intoxicated ones).’ The cultural chasm between “Bharat” and “India”, despite their apparent interchangeability, was a political and social one too. It was a clash between Nehruvian notions of modernity and more organic al­ternatives, a language rift between north and south, and perceptions of exclusion and inferiority. It was, above all, a discussion about how to define national identity and the substantive elements that consti­tuted a new nation.

The Modi government’s decision to issue invitations to the delegates at the G20 summit it is hosting over the weekend in the name of “President of Bharat” and “Prime Minister of Bharat” sharply focuses attention on a deliberate choice. This is not to say that India is being done away with, but the idea clearly is to emphasise Bharat. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders called the decision as reflective of the country’s civilisational march, and the opposition INDIA alli­ance attacked the move as a distraction and an aversion to the coalition of anti-BJP parties. The civilisational argument that BJP has stressed flows from the party’s de-colonialisation project. This is inclusive of the Sangh Parivar’s efforts to undo the reading of history and Indian democracy favoured by the Left-Liberal intellectual class which has seen a disaggregation of identities in tribal, caste, and regional colours. The Sangh’s view is almost the opposite, seeking an amalgamation of tradi­tions within a larger cultural narrative even while acknowledg­ing their distinctiveness. The “restoration” of heroes like Chhatrapati Shivaji, Maharana Pratap, and Lachit Borphukan to their rightful place in history rather than being cast as minor “rebels” and a de-sanitisation of the more oppressive aspects of Islamic rule is part of the political project the Modi government has pursued since it assumed office in 2014. The new national curriculum for schools can be expected to more fully reflect this re-balancing act.

The constitutional and legal position on the use of “Bharat” in official invitations is easy to settle. The Constitution unambiguously states “India, that is Bharat”, and truth be told, the use of Bharat is, as evident from the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly, deeply embedded in India’s past, going back thousands of years to the Vedic age. Depending on who was articulating the matter, the ge­ography that constitutes India (or large parts of it) has been referred to as “Hindustan” or “Bharat”. The description of India being the “land of the Hindus” was not necessarily a religious descriptor, it was also an association with the river Indus. The name India is similarly traced. According to the Pune-based Bhandarkar Ori­ental Institute, the earliest traceable origin of the word Bharat goes back to the Rig Veda and the epochal Dasarajna war, where Sudas from the Bharata clan emerged victorious. The authenticity of Bharat is not much in doubt and its use may well become the norm in official protocol and foreign ministry communications. The political implications are obvious. The row over Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam scion Udayanidhi’s remarks disparaging Sanatana Dharma, though unconnected to the Centre’s decision, is part of this debate too. It is a matter of how identities are defined—through positive self-definition or rejection and condemnation of others. Dravidian politics has often been marked by a vituperative targeting of certain castes and Hindu beliefs. It is easy to see the denigration of Hindu beliefs does not extend to other religions and nor does it explain the continued instances of oppression faced by the Dalits in Tamil Nadu at the hands of the assertive middle castes.

Is there a risk that the quest to re-imagine identity can slip into a closing of doors? Indeed, an over-ritualisation of religion was seen to have mired the later Vedic age in gloomy, inward-looking thought. India may have been adopted and promoted by the British, but is part of the popular consciousness and as much an indigenous term now as any other. It is, for all manner of speaking, a Hindi word. So, taken too far the India-Bharat debate can assume shades of chauvinism, precisely the exclu­sionary and ideologically tinted vision that the re-assertion of the Bharat identity seeks to counter. It is, however, trite to argue that most major religious and cultural streams are heteroge­neous as this does not stand up to the evidence of history. India has been truly welcoming to most cultures and influences and its racial mix demonstrates this inclusivity. But the progress of a nation can involve “unlearning” which is critical for a fuller understanding of its roots and values. Not doing so can result in “deracination” of the sort Manoj Kumar’s films spoke of in an unsophisticated manner when the term was still obscure. The ideological and cultural battle is far from over and the discussion can only gather intensity in the coming months when India will vote to decide whether Prime Minister Narendra Modi should get a third term. As yet, there is little to suggest that Congress leader Shashi Tharoor’s concern that the government will do away with India, which he rightly says, has acquired tremendous brand value, will be scrapped.

Social media conversations around how India and Indian are intrinsic to the country’s various institutions are not incor­rect and neither is the “Bharatiya” content in its existence. The ringing lines ‘Hindi hai hum, watan hai Hindustan hamara (We are Hindi and our nation is Hindustan)’ in ‘Sare jahan se accha’ remind us of India’s essence that is not contained by any limited interpretation. The charge of divisiveness is flung about indiscriminately, not just by political parties but by intel­lectuals and commentators who owe it to themselves a more thorough study of the Indian character rather than becoming partisans themselves.

cultural identityG20 SummitIndia-BharatNarendra ModiNation Building