Social Philosophy of Vivekananda and Indian Nationalism

Surinder Kumar Lijhara

• Editore: BrownWalker Press
• Anno: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781599426198
• Argomento: Filosofía
• Categoria: Filósofos

Among the galaxy of scholars, Swami Vivekananda stands out as a majestic tower of light who has given a new tempo to the building up of a new sense of nationalism in modern India. The uniqueness of Vivekananda was his endeavour to translate every ounce of

Concept of State, Nation and Nationalism

It is universally acknowledged that every culture, tradition and civilization has its own unique features through which every civilization becomes distinctive in character and in its moral fiber. From this perspective, when we look and Indian culture and evaluate its exclusivity, it can be assertively stated that Indian civilization and culture is distinguished in respect of its continuity and heterogeneous ethos and also because of its accommodating character Democracy and nationalism are known to be the two powerful movements in the history of world civilization. The concept of nationalism goes hand in hand with certain implicit notions like the Hebrew sense of distinctiveness, Aristotelian and Herodotus’ elucidations on the nature of people, the Greek understanding of the Polis and Hellas, and the ancient Roman idea of “Pro Patria Mori’, means to die for the country is considered as the highest good. We may also take cognizance of the inspiration that was provided by the University students during the medieval and renaissance times which was organized in the name of nation according to language and region. It is also a fact of history that Elizabethan poetry and Shakespearean players and some of the legal writing and dramas have shown evidence of certain distinctiveness of English and its people and also its sense of nationalism. We cannot just deny that they are merely sporadic incidents of proto-nationalism nor are they the pride of a section of people from France or the Elizabethan England who had been seeking to change the idea of state into nation. The fact is that the concepts like nation, nationalism, nation state and the like are predominantly new concepts that derived from the aftermath of renaissance and the movements that were linked with renaissance.

A historical search of the concept of nationalism is linked with such concepts like state, nation and nation state. In this context, it is pertinent to explore and inquire whether Indians had a concept like nationalism prior to 20th century. If so, what was it like? Is it the same way as European nationalism? Can we or can we not reasonably believe that our ideas on nationalism are a byproduct of Indian sentiments against British rule? Before the independence movement, can we assertively claim that we had a concept like nationalism? Therefore, our inquiry into the question of ‘who are we’ coupled with the concepts such as nation, state and nation state ostensibly point to the question whether we had a concept like nationalism prior to the British rule. With these preliminary remarks, let us systematically search the concept of state in India.

Concept of State: Indian Views

It is recognized universally that the characteristic political institution of the indo-Aryans was kingship.1 The king ruled over either one or several Rashtras. As suggested by Viswanath Prasad Varma, the Vedic Rashtra was not an exactly defined political term and to translate it by the word state would imply an amount of legal precision which did not obtain in those days. Of course, if we use the term state as anthropologists use it in the sense of cognizable political unit with an acknowledged superior, we can do that.2 It is generally considered that there are three terms-the families, the tribe and the clan-which indicates the population structure of Rashtra and the territorial structure of the Rashtra was made of Gramas-villages. Thus, it is argued that kingship arose in Vedic times as a part of the process of integration of the families, tribes, clans and villages into Rashtra-territorial unit or state. In fact, we should not tempt to believe that the political unit as understood in the political philosophy of our times like polis, res publica or civitas is equivalent to the concept of Rashtra as conceived by the Vedic people.

In the Aitareya Brahmana, Rashtram is identified with dominion or rule-kshatra.3 In the Taittiriya Samhita, people are said to be Rashtra.4 Concept of Rashtra does not indicate the comprehensiveness and legalism associated with the concept of state. It appears that according to Kautilya, Rashtra meant no more than the countryside or the people of the countryside. According to Sukra, Rashtra is one of the seven elements of kingdom.5 Although in Hindi language Rashtra means nation-state yet we cannot positively ascribe the same meaning to this concept as understood presently. Perhaps, Hegel was constrained to argue that in pre-modern India, there cannot be any state because of the absence of freedom both as abstract will and as subjective freedom. Therefore, ‘Hindu political existence presents us with a people but no state’.6 The practical point is that Brahminical India in its olden days lacked the concept of a state or nation-state as understood in the present times. Thus, Cox says that Hindu society has been a large aggregation of practically autonomous small communities held together by mutual dependence and hence he concludes that Brahmanic India may be called a society without an organized state.7

In the Vedic age, power of the king was absolutely limited by the authority and power of two institutions, the Samiti and the Sabha. According to Ludwig, the Sabha was an assembly of Brahmins and the rich people while the Samiti included the entire people. Dayananda regarded the Samiti and Sabha as two different institutions. Besides the Sabha and the Samiti, there are references to Vidatha which signifies (1) an assembly for secular ends, (2) an assembly for religious ends and (3) an assembly for war.8

Theories of Origin of State in Ancient India

An in-depth understanding of the theories on the origin and nature of State in India is classified under three theories which are the following: Social contract theory, Divine origin theory and Organic theory.

What is the meaning of a state in ancient India? According to the ancient Indian thinkers, the State stands for ensuring peace, order and happiness. It was said to be a social organization with political power. With regard to the origin of the state is concerned, there are diverse opinions among the ancient thinkers. Thus, certain thinkers hold the view that state is the outcome of a contract between ruler and the ruled. Secondly, we see a theory called Saptanga theory that deals mainly with the forms and functions of the state. According to this theory, the primary function of the state is promotion of Dharma. Thirdly, monarchy was considered to be the ideal form of government by ancient thinkers.

The initial idea on the notion of state and kingship is seen in the Aitareya Brahmana. The work is a description of a legend that explains the war between gods and the demon and the defeat of the former. This defeat made the gods to unite and appoint Soma as their king. The king in turn is expected to save the country from all kinds of military attacks and also serve the human needs. Let us briefly describe the three theories of sate.

(a) Social Contract Theory

The social contract theory undergirds the idea that state is the result of a contract between the ruler and the ruled or their representatives. The king was expected to save the country and his subjects from all kinds of external aggression and promote order and safety measures for the people. Nevertheless, we do not find such a theory or presumption in the earliest Vedic texts. Indeed, it is mentioned that king is elected to wage a war successfully against the demons.

(b) Divine Origin Theory

According to the divine origin theory, king is subordinated to law which is made by the society. This theory gives greater importance to the community than to the king. The king, according to this theory, is a father figure to his subjects and therefore needs to treat them as a loving father. At the same time, there are scriptures like Manusamhita which advocates that the origin of the state is from divine. Thus, Manusamhita states that ‘The Lord created the king for the protection of His whole creation…even an infant king must not be despised from an idea that he is only a mortal, because he is a great deity in human form’. Such a view of divine origin of the king is found in Ramayana also. It is stated in Ramayana that the humankind approached Brahma to provide them a king and a human form was emerged and was made the King b Brahma. It is explained in Mahabharata that the king is superior to the ordinary persons and is endowed with noble qualities that is descended directly from heaven. Such a view is also found in the Puranas which describe the divine origin of the king and state. Agni Purana goes to such an extent by depicting king as the embodiment of Lord Vishnu.

(c) Organic Theory

According o the organic theory, state is like an organism. This theory states that each part of the body is responsible for the healthy functioning of the whole organism and its proficient functioning. The organic theory states that there are seven parts in the state which is considered as the whole body and its parts are king or the sovereign, the minister, the territory, the population, city or the capital, the treasury, the army, the friends and the allies. Among these seven parts, it is the king who is most important. We read in the Matsya Purana that the king is the root and the subjects are the trees. Sukra Neetisara compares the state with the human body. Thus, Sukracharya goes on to illustrate the king as the head of the body, the ministers are the eyes, the treasury is the mouth, army is the heart, the fort is the hands, and the territory is the feet.

State to Nation State: Western Grounds

It is generally acknowledged that the concept of nation-state is a product of modernity. It is also claimed that the idea of nation-state derives from the modern idea of people’s sovereignty as being the highest sovereignty. When people can define as to how to live, in what state and in what rule, they could transform their ethnic group into a nation. Concept of nation implies a two-fold meanings: one owes its origin from German romanticism and is articulated in terms of yearning for a tribal unity based on certain ascriptive values which are ascriptive in nature and based on historical legends, as well as on mythology,9 and the other has its roots firmly based on the French Revolution and is defined in culturological terms. This is to suggest that a nation-state is a community which has its own political and cultural identity. It also implies that the nation (as an ethnic group) is not necessarily a constitutive feature of the state. Such an understanding of the concept of nation obviates the necessity to argue that one can think about nation either as based on ethnic characteristics or civic particularities. Earlier, nation was understood as the inhabitants of a kingdom or a province. We may also take cognizance of the fact that the concepts such as nation, and state were not understood the way we understand these notions currently. The former understanding of nation-state was based on the unity of peoples and thereby checks pluralism of cultural expressions to national symbols. According to the latter, state and society cannot be distinguished merely by striving to construe a monolithic community.

In the west, 18th century marked the initial starting point of the concept of modern nation state which is regarded to be superior to the emperor and also thought to be the guarantor of rights. The central feature of the history of Europe from 1815 to 1900 is based on the concept of the materialization of a liberal nation-state. Political liberals campaigned not only for freedom of the press but also equally excitable about legal equality and religious toleration as the part of constitution. They advocated for an elected Government with limited powers and franchise granted to adult males on the basis of property and wealth. Economic liberals, on the one hand, desired for open market systems whereas the nationalists, on the other hand, wanted language, customs and culture to replace monarchy as the source of political unity. One can conclusively assert that during the last three decades of the 19th century, the model of nation - state fully gained its general modern meaning and thus spearheaded the setting for political activity in Western Europe

The French Revolution, while accelerating the development of the secular nation - state and giving it a systematic shape, declared the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen” (1789) that all men are ‘born remain free and equal in rights’ and that the purpose of Government is to protect these natural and inalienable rights of ‘liberty, property, security, and resistance to opposition.10 The new nation state subordinated religion to the state. The French National Constituent Assembly confiscated Catholic Church lands to meet a financial crisis and unsuccessfully attempted to make the Church part of the secular state.

The foregoing explanation amply clarifies that nation- states are a product of a specific historical reason that got emanated from Western Europe in 16th and 17th centuries. Until then, the primary loyalty of states was not to a nation but to a particular ruler or dynasty, or sometimes to an oligarchy, army, Church, or tribal chieftain. Indeed, these forms of government were legitimate and stable, but their stability was impermanent. We may also take into consideration of the fact that the Holy Roman Empire was too fragile to prevent the formation of city states in Northern Europe. Further, it should also be noted that Italy became very prosperous through long-distance trade. These wealth and trade patterns were eventually shared with the West European states and began development of the modern economy.

National Sense and the Concept of Legitimacy

The foregoing considerations allow us to plead that the history of each nation state becomes sufficiently strong when it is competent enough to demand the transfer of legitimacy from the external authority to the nation by bringing down of the pre-national establishment of institutions to make the ruler accountable. Many times, such transference of power is gone along with political violence which may lead to political instability. One of the significant aspects that are central to the idea of nation-state is the...

Indice dei contenuti

• Cover Page
• Half Title
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• 1. Chapter 1: Concept of State, Nation and Nationalism
• 2. Chapter 2: Social Philosophy of Vivekananda
• 4. Chapter 4: Indian Nationalism and Religious Pluralism: Re-Locating Swami Vivekananda
• 5. Chapter 5: Swami Vivekananda and India’s Future Destiny
• Bibliography
• Glossary