The Contemplation Toward a Theory of National Consciousness (original) (raw)
THE CONTEMPLATION TOWARD A THEORY OF NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS
Sarvesh Mani Tripathi*
The concept of nation is one of the most stridently debated and discussed issues in the contemporary world, giving rise to various protracted and prolonged polemics and conflictual and contradictory intellectual stand points and opinions. A nation’s existence and its place in the context of the relationship with the individuals has been a matter of serious academic interest world wide which found a new relevance in the contemporary struggle of various socio-cultural and ethnic fractions. The contemporary clash of civilizations has its roots in the various national identities which are often at the logger heads due to various historical and political reasons and thus creating a world inherently split, fractured and divided on various points. This paper tries to understand the origin and the essence of a nation and the way through which the nations are born, consolidated and sustained in the memory of the individuals. The concepts such as nation, state, nationalism and national consciousness are analysed by giving attention to the role of individual consciousness in the creation, formation, transformation and transfiguration of the nation and in the transmutation and articulation of the national consciousness in the discourse.
A nation is an emotional and spiritual construction which finds its existence in the consciousness of the national subjects, has its roots in the memory of the people, and is consolidated through the repeated articulation of national history, memory, myth and tradition and the discursive formations of national symbols, identity, specific cultural and ethnic specialties and the notions of collectivity and connectivity. The nation is the consciousness of the diversity within the perceived homogeneity and collectivity and the awareness of the evolutionary process of human subjectivity where an individual becomes the creation of complex historical, cultural and traditional procedures, being shaped by both the national glories and the calamities. In a national context, the nation with its accumulated burden of history and tradition becomes a thing of paramount importance in which the individual self of the national subject becomes
- Department of English, Dr. H.S. Gaur University, Sagar (M.P.).
↩︎
- Department of English, Dr. H.S. Gaur University, Sagar (M.P.).
the part of the larger entity that is the nation. This dilution of individuality into the larger principle of nation consolidates, perpetuates, ameliorates, and guarantees the existence of a nation. The nation in its purest and most vibrant form becomes the nucleus of the individual activities, transcending the petty divisions of class, race, cast or ethnicity. It is by nature inclusive and transgressive that grows out of divisions and differences and evolves in the consciousness of the people like a living entity.
A nation is a very different phenomenon from a state which is above all a political construction, designed to have a peaceful coexistence in the present without any claim to the shared past or continuity. A state is created either by a colossal mass compromise or by the vehement use of violent force to attain the political equilibrium and harmony within a specific boundary through the use of common set of norms and practices, rules and regulations and through the common constitution which is abided by all the people of the state. The fundamental point that differentiates a nation from the state is that while a state exists in a specific territory with the clearly visible, followed and abided by rules and regulations, and is maintained by the political machinery to attain unity in the framework of good governance, the nation evolves like a plant or other vital things from the inner strength of its cultural and traditional power and takes roots in the shared memories of the individuals without necessarily following exact boundaries all the time. The national boundaries are defined by the national consciousness of the people and not the visa-versa. Where a state is the creation of the political exigencies of power, a nation is the external manifestation of the universal principles of unity and collectivity beneath the veneer of diversity and heterogeneity. Through this universal principle of unity within the diversity the nation becomes "the most universally legitimate value in the political life of our time."1 As Ernest Renan defines,
A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which in truth are but one, constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One lies in the past, one in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present day consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received in an undivided form. Man does not
improvise. The nation, like the individual, is the culmination of a long past of endeavors, sacrifice and devotion. (1990:19)
Thus the nation is a spiritual principle which gives meaning, identity and roots to the individuals by emphasising the relation of the present with the past memories and glories and even with the “historical errors.” (I bid : 11) The pragmatic and visible difference of nation and state can be comprehended by the proper understanding of the difference between nationalism and national consciousness, which is the root cause of various conflicts in the world. An understanding of the basic nature of nationalism and the national consciousness and their difference may resolve various political strife’s and conflicts going on in the contemporary world in the name of the nation.
Nationalism is the ultimate product of the colossal mass compromise or the forcefully extracted political equilibrium on the name of a state. Nationalism, like other-isms in the world, is by nature chauvinistic, incomplete, ambiguous, biased and misleading because it derives its origin and existence from the political exigencies of the time and its primary function is to promote those political constructions and principles which give birth to the state. Nationalism, though, outwardly seems to be complete and inclusive, is basically incomplete, biased and fractured. Its basic endeavor is to maintain the supremacy and the equilibrium of the state even at the cost of national culture, tradition and myth. Nationalism is mainly a mode of thinking, a stand point whose principle postulation is the superiority of the self over the others, and in order to establish this superiority nationalism promotes abrogated versions of history, creates false and purposeful myths and establishes the dissembling and dissimilative ideas which ratify the superiority of the state. Within the terrain of the state these strategic usage of the intellectual powers operate the mechanism of the state to vindicate the validity of the state, disguising the conflicting facet of the compromise within it. In the political considerations, nationalism is propagated and operated through the binary opposition. In order to promote nationalism the state creates a common monster, a demon, which is generally perceived as a threat to the security, safety and establishment of the state. The national subjects are united more in the calamities than in the victories or glories, so an alter ego or a foe is demonised in the form of some other state and in this way nationalism is justified and vindicated against the threat of the foe.
Nationalism often creates a binary opposition of its own so that it may project itself white as against the black of its foe. Thus, nationalism becomes inherently incomplete as it derives its meaning in the context of the other and depends upon a common monster for its own solidarity and existence. Because of this inherent incompleteness and the lack of inclusiveness, nationalism sees and projects itself in the opposition of the world and endeavors to project and establish the superiority of its own over the rest of the world.
This inherent binary opposition of the nationalism is the root cause of the clash of the civilisations in the contemporary world. Due to the lack of inclusiveness and the holistic vision, nationalism breeds conflicts and struggles. Because of its very nature nationalism has given rise to the colonialism and at the same time produced the seeds of decolonization. Imperialism is but only a protracted version of nationalism as we know that the triumph of European nationalism coexisted with the consolidation of empire. In the whole process of colonization and decolonization, nationalism was at the centre stage in the past and in all the conflicts at present also nationalism occupies the central place. Thus practically and theoretically, nationalism is bound to promote hatred and violence because it takes a stand point which is at the opposition to the other. Because of its very nature nationalism breeds hatred, conflicts, violence, distrust and unequal power relations among various nations, thus becoming, “the most dangerous vice of our time- for more dangerous than drunk ness, of drug, of commercial dishonesty.” The only viable solution to the contemporary conflicts is to promote national consciousness in place of nationalism, which is a far greater and worth while concept than nationalism. As Frantz Fanon writes, “national consciousness, which is not nationalism, is the only thing that will give us an international dimension.” (Fanon 1967:199)
National consciousness is the awareness and understanding by the people of their own rich legacy and tradition which is essentially mixed and hybrid, an accumulation of various heterogeneous and even sometimes contradictory streams of life. It is the consciousness of the fact that a nation exists in the abbreviation of various social, cultural, racial, ethnic and religious groups and derives its vitality and vibrancy from the comouflagation of the ideals and principles of all these groups. Precisely, the national consciousness is the culmination of the universal values which underlie within the apparently different
socio-cultural, religious and ethnic entities within a nation. It is a state of being where the individual subject is submerged into the greater self of nation. It is a state of being in which an individual becomes a part of the universal process of natural evolution in which various different entities proliferate together in harmony and peaceful coexistence. It is the understanding of the fact that no individual or the social group is pure and perfect, but is the result of a very complex and entangled historical process in which various groups and their ideals are absorbed and transformed into a new shape. The noblest and strongest nations are those where the blood is most mixed. This sense of essential hybridity is the essence of national consciousness and the ideas like chauvinism and notions of superiority are completely hollow and meaningless. This sense of inherent hybridity breeds the tolerance and mutual respect across the nations as it foregrounds the fundamental postulation that beneath the veneer of differences lie the seeds of collectivity and unity.
As a nation finds its existence through the shared memories of the sufferings and glories of the past and attains a national character of compromise and assertion, it finds its external manifestation in the characters of its great heroes and mythical legends. The acts and motives of these characters or national heroes establish a set of pattern for human behavior which becomes the ideals of the national subjects in the future cutting across time and other differences. Thus every nation evolves and attains a national character which shows the values and ideals the nation cherishes.
National consciousness does not strictly adhere to the political boundaries of the nation, though any serious contemplation shows that the state and nation built one another within a specific geographical territory. In fact state formations are political necessities and it takes thousands of years to evolve a state into a nation and develop its national consciousness. Thus any arbitrary formation of a state or the disintegration of a state can not integrate or disintegrate the national consciousness of the people in a short temporal framework. The national consciousness may follow the loose configurations of a state, but it is not strictly confirmed by the political locations. On the contrary, national consciousness often decides the shape, both political and cultural, of a nation as we find in the case of Germany in the late 20th 20^{\text {th }} century.
To understand this difference of nationalism and national consciousness there can be no better example than the relation of India and Pakistan. The love -hate relationship of India- Pakistan is a riddle which only a very serious observer can entangle. The genesis of India and Pakistan is the result of the political exigencies of power and the colossal mass compromise of their subjects in 1947. These countries constitute the most volatile situation in the world as they both are armed with heavy nuclear arsenal and other means of mass destruction. The incendiary speeches of the leaders from both the sides with the scares of three real wars make the situation worst. On the political front both the countries share quite contradictory ideals and the petty squabbles are the order of the day. The political conflict over Kashmir is still not stipulated and other matters including that of cross border terrorism and the respective alleged roles of ISI & R & AW in the abominal crimes have always been creating hiatus in the cataclysmic relationship of these countries. In spite of the volatile, pernicious and hazardous relationship of both the countries and their apparent rivalry in every walk of life including cricket match, where a match becomes a symbol of national pride and thus winning a match is a matter of do or die for the people of both the countries, there lies beneath the veneer of hate and rivalry, a strange infatuation, fascination, and attraction for one another in both the countries. It is a matter of serious research that why Indian operas and movies are quite famous in Pakistan, Indian Bollywood stars, singers, artists, cricketers and even leaders, who are most often perceived as abominal perpetrators, but some another time, as loved ambassadors of unity and peace, are fairly famous in Pakistan’s gentry. Even when the most strident advocate of Hindu chauvinism L.K. Adwani went to Pak he was welcomed like a great leader while his companion and the then P.M. Atal Bihari Bajpai is still fairly famous in Pakistan. When Pakistan won the World Cup of Cricket in 1992, Sunil Gavasker was the chief guest of the facilitation ceremony and General Ziaul-Haq wanted to barter Kashmir with Lata Mangeshker, while Dilip Kumar is awarded the Nishan-e-Pakistan award, the most important award for the civilians in Pakistan.
On the Indian side this contradiction of feelings is more apparent. Indians hate Pakistanis is the commonly visible perception of any objective observer, but once one scraps beneath the conscious mind and tries to explore the unconscious, one is astonished to find
that Indians just love Gulam Ali, Attaullah Khan, Imran Khan and Wasim Akram. In spite of Kargil prodition and Mumbai carnage and most strident, virulent cries of war, at the heart of every Indian lies a soft corner for not Pakistan, the country, but the Pakistan’s gentry.
This appalling contradiction in the relationship of India and Pakistan may be the eighth wonder of the world for a common and sociolist observer, but for a person having a deep understanding of the consciousness of the people of both the countries it is a very obvious, genuine and practical finding. Let us try to understand this Indo-Pak love-hate conundrum.
India and Pakistan are two independent, sovereign and free countries which emerged on the world scenario in 1947 after a long battle against British empire. They were the result of political necessities and personal ambitions and then onwards their relationship revolved around the pivot of 1947. In order to consolidate their new born countries, both of them promoted nationalism, patriotism, chauvinism and cultural superiority. As it is evident that all these ideals are exclusive and incomplete as they function through the binary opposition, both these countries saw themselves in opposition to one another and perceived one another as menace to the security, integrity and existence of the other. The extreme manifestation of these ideals came in the shape of three wars and the mindset which demonized the other and accepted it as a nemesis of some sort. Now this mindset is capitalised by the gaggle of leaders by the use of coercive and obdurate attitudes, the incendiary and pernicious languages and through precarious and diffident policies. Thus in both the countries the whole system is created which saw and projected one another as a menace to the security, establishment and even existence to the other. Infact this system and attitude is the cause of hate and distrust in both the countries which make their borders, in the words of Mexican author Carlos Feuntes,
. . . an enormous bloody wound, a sick body, mute in the face of its ills, on the point of shouting, torn by its loyalties, and beaten, finally, by political callousness, demagoguery and corruption. 6{ }^{6}
Now this is all about the inherent hate in both the countries. Because of their own nationalism and patriotism both these countries see themselves in a very narrow time frame and derive their identity in the context of one another, from a very limited vision. Thus to
recapitulate, when these countries forget about the distant past and see themselves through the narrow vision, the hateful feelings and conflicting ideals come to the fore which are apparent to the world and which have become the greatest menace to the security and peace of the world.
But in spite of this apparent hate and rivalry, both these countries exert a very strong fascination for one another. For Pakistanis India offers a tantalising taste of the exotic other and presents a compelling but complex fascination. It is the enemy in cricket, in two wars and in the long rumbling dispute over the contested territory of Kashmir, yet still Indian cricketers and bollywood stars are welcomed there by the public as real heroes and Pakistanis vie with each other to show their affection for them. In India, this fascination is quite clearly visible whenever successful peace talk with Pakistan takes place. The enthusiasm and optimism of Indians show their inner desire to have a smooth, easy and harmonious relationship with Pakistan.
Now if we analyse the reason of this contradictory, ironical and conflictual relationship, we find that the shared memories of thousands of years of the common history, geography, culture and tradition is responsible for this love- hate relationship. Basically India and Pakistan are two countries but one nation, that is they share an inherent national consciousness which has evolved, proliferated and got itched out on their consciousness through time. Their memories of war and conflicts are part of their conscious minds but their common sense of connectivity, unity and collectivity has become a part of their unconscious mind and thus that is reflected in this love-hate relationship. Actually the national consciousness is the universalisation of the principle of the self and the people derive the existence of their self through this national consciousness and imbibe the principles and ideals of the nation through inheritance which is their legacy, tradition and ultimately the essence of their being.
Because of their shared national consciousness both these countries see one another both as a self and as an other at the same time which makes them stand in the contradictory positioning in relation to one another. For example, The hate and disgust of Indians disappear with the consciousness that the place we call Rawalpindi at present and which is the centre of ISI & Pakistan Army is the same place Tachshashila, which was the greatest centre of learning and knowledge in ancient India and which was inherently related with
Chanakya and Chandragupt Mourya, two of the greatest heroes of Indian consciousness and history. Lahore derives its name from Love, the elder son of Lord Rama. The ancient city of Harrappa which was the pillar stone of Indian civilization is in Pakistan and the great part of Sindhu river, which is one of the greatest mythical rivers of Indian culture and civilization, is in Pakistan. It is on the banks of Sindhu that the seeds of Indian civilization flourished and that is why it is adored and sanctified in puranas on various occasions and even India derives its name from the same river. For centuries, the place we call now Pakistan and which is demonized and presented as monster in Indian nationalism, has been the great centre of Hinduism and Buddhism and has produced many of the greatest Indian classics.
The same goes with Pakistan also. No Pakistani in his senses can deny the shared past of the nation and can belie the common legacy of the people. How can any one deny the fact that one of the most sacred place of Islamic Pakistan, Ajmer has been the capital of Prithviraj Chouhan, one of the greatest idols of Indian nationalism and how can any one ignore the fact that the fort of Lahore is made by the ancestors of the same person who made Tajmahal and Red fort, two buildings which are the most important and distinguished symbols of Indian identity and nationality? On the cultural and traditional front also this ubiquitous presence of unity and collectivity is clearly visible. The people from both the sides share common habits, common language, customs, rituals, norms and practices and thus these two political entities concur on the cultural front, creating a very complex and entangled relationship between the two. In this way we find that through the narrow vision of nationalism and patriotism these two countries, India and Pakistan, stand in the bloody and disastrous relationship with one another, creating the most volatile and explosive condition in the region and presenting the most pernicious threat to the security, prosperity, peace, harmony and establishment of the world. But by understanding the shared legacy of the past and replacing the nationalism by national consciousness, we can very easily avoid and sort out the vulnerable condition of the present and establish the harmonious and peaceful relationship based on equality, liberty and fraternity. The national consciousness will give the existence in the present, a deep root in the past and a new perspective, a new dimension for the future.
Thus to recapitulate the whole paper we find that the political constructions of states and the subsequent false notions of nationalism and patriotism are at the root cause of the miseries and the problems of the world. These chauvinistic, biased, exclusive and incomplete ideals are the results of political complexities and the exigencies of power which are divisive by nature. This paper advocates to replace these narrow ideals with the broader and greater principle of national consciousness to bring forth the internal unity beneath the diversity among the nations and thus to create an awareness in the people of the world of their common roots, cultures, traditions, shared history, and camaraderie, memories and suffering, to create a new world order based on the fundamental principles of equality, liberty and fraternity.
REFERENCES
Renan,Ernest.1990. “What is a nation”, (ed.) Homi K. Bhabha, Nation and Narration (London and New York: Routledge, p -19.
From internet, google/ Nationalism.
Fanon, Frantz .1967. The Wretched of the Earth (Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Hindustan Times, New Delhi, 2 Dec 2008, p-8.