Defination of nationalism = Bharat mata ki jai?

The remarks of the All India Majlise-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi that he won’t raise the slogan ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’, even if someone puts a knife to his throat, became the raging controversy in the Indian mainstream political and social circles. Bollywood actor Anupam Kher went on another extreme when he tweeted that chanting “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” should be the only definition of nationalism for those living in India, all others are escape routes.

In the same context, the famous lyricist and parliamentarian Javed Akhtar earned laurels nationwide for lashing out at Owasi in his farewell speech in Rajya Sabha, when he said, “He (Owasi) said he will not say ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ as the Constitution does not require him to say so. The Constitution even does not ask him to wear sherwani (dress) and topi (cap)... I don’t care to know whether saying ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ is my duty or not, it is my right”.

If we rationally consider these statements, the ones uttered by Mr Owasi and Mr Kher represent orthodox and extreme views while that of Mr Akhtar appears liberal and rational.

On Wednesday March 16, AIMIM MLA Waris Pathan was suspended from the Maharashtra Assembly for refusing to say ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’. In a milieu when allegations and allegiances are marked on the basis of slogans shouted or the refusal to chant one, it may be pertinent to note that Waris Pathan was willing to say ‘Jai Hind‘. His refusal was only for ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’.

Both these slogans emerged during India’s freedom struggle. Both are reverential. Yet, both are markedly different. While in the first, the nation is abstract, in the second it is both abstract and an icon, a goddess, a mother. We know that various religions, including Islam, forbid the practice of idol worship and goddess worship.

Origin of Bharat Mata dates back to the later part of nineteenth century and the inspiration behind this conception was the famous Bengali writer Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay (1838-1894). In his novel Anandamath, he wrote the song Vande Matram wherein the land of birth has been personified as Bharat Mata and in a particular stanza symbolized her with the Goddess Durga. He perhaps did it with a view to generate patriotic feelings among Indians to rise against the British rule. The Muslims, however, believe that to sing the song would tantamount to worshipping the deity Bharat Mata, while Islam prohibits idol worship, hence they are against it.

It is true that the majority Muslims look at the BJP and RSS with suspicion. The reasons are many and quite obvious. Firstly, BJP does not pursue appeasement policy unlike Congress and some regional parties. Then BJP’s stand on Article 370 of Constitution, accusations of love-jihad, opposition of beef consumption, talks of withdrawing the minority status to Aligarh Muslim University etc are some of the issues which Muslims feel, are against their interests.

If the likes of Owasi and their vehement opposition to a slogan represent one extreme, the tweet of the Anupam Kher, however well-intentioned, setting new definition of nationalism for Indians represents another extreme. Such a moral policing would perhaps neither be of any help in generating patriotic or nationalist sentiments in this land of diversities nor in any way strengthen our democracy.

While rationalists and liberals in both communities would agree that there is no need of going in semantics of the slogans ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’, ‘Vande Matram’ or ‘Jai Hind’ in the modern times, at they essentially convey the same abstract meaning i.e. our love, respect and allegiance to the land of our birth. Semantics are not so important because it is our love and sentiments for the nation that really matters. Liberals like Javed Akhtar and many others understand this point but those who do not realize should also not be forced to do it with coercion or violence.