I just finished reading Shashi Tharoor's superlative An Era of Darkness, a study of the monstrosity that the British raj was. And I felt a familiar rage in me; one that I had experienced many years ago when I had read Will Durant's The Case for India or Mike Davis's Late Victorian Holocausts. And many other such books that have catalogued the crimes against humanity that the British colonialists had carried out. It is estimated that they killed nearly 30 million Indians in man-made famines. They ran the biggest drug-smuggling business in the history of humanity, which devastated India and China. A commentator had correctly said that Queen Victoria was essentially a drug lord; like a turbo-charged Dawood Ibrahim with a better headdress. There were many other crimes, too many to list in this short article.
But a question arose in my mind, alongside. The British did not conquer us by themselves; after all, there were too few of them. Many Indian soldiers conquered India for them. The British did not run their drug-smuggling businesses by themselves; many Indian (and Chinese) businessmen did the dirty work for them. General Dyer may have ordered the shooting of defenceless Indians at Jallianwala Bagh, but the soldiers who actually wielded the guns were largely from the Indian subcontinent. Winston Churchill (a war criminal no different from Hitler), may have given the orders for events that led to the Bengal Famine in the early 1940s (death toll estimated between 1.5 and 4 million), but the officers who implemented his orders were largely Indian.
Why didn't the Indians, who committed these crimes, rebel? Why didn't they say: "I will not do this to my people?"
The nauseating apologists for the British raj (many of whom are Indians) will say that this is because we didn't think of ourselves as 'Indian' since we were not one country before the British arrived. This is nonsense.
India as a cultural and civilizational entity has existed for millennia. There are enough examples and documentation to prove this. You can read the books I have mentioned above to find some of them. And in any case, before the treaties of Westphalia in the 17th century, 'nations' did not exist as political units, but as cultural entities. In 16th-century London, if you were loyal to England rather than King Henry VIII, you would have been beheaded as a traitor. But the cultural concept of England existed at the time. Just like the cultural concept of India did.
So, were the Indian collaborators driven by personal greed? That may help us understand the motivations of the businessmen who supported the raj; they did become fabulously rich. But does that explain the behaviour of the Indian soldiers who fought and died for the British raj? There cannot be greater selflessness than dying for someone else, right? Some allege that the Indians who fought and died for the British were largely lower castes who were rebelling against the injustices in their own society by allying with a foreign power. This flies in the face of facts. Most soldiers who joined the British army and helped the British conquer India in the 18th and early 19th century were actually upper castes (this same category of soldiers were the ones who rebelled in 1857 in the India's First War of Independence). Why then did these people work against their own country's interests?
A thought has occurred to me, which I would like to present for your consideration.
For most of known history, India has led the world in terms of wealth and gross domestic product, as well as knowledge and science. Our ancestors made discoveries and inventions in various fields such as mathematics, medicine, metallurgy, navigation, astronomy and so on. But our greatest contribution was in the area of spirituality and philosophy. I think that, perhaps, one innovation in this area, when taken to its extreme, did not work out well for us.
And that philosophical innovation is swadharma. Or the modern English word used to describe it: Purpose.
As a philosophical construct to help us live a fruitful life, finding Purpose is certainly a good idea. At its simplest, the concept is this: that you must discover your Purpose, your swadharma, and live it; for only then will you find true achievement and personal happiness. Of course, you must discover your Purpose on your own, and not allow society to enforce their interpretation on you. The beauty of finding Purpose is that if you live your life in sync with it, then success or failure ceases to matter. You experience nothing but joy. As I do, when I live according to my Purpose, which is to write books exploring and understanding the culture and philosophies of the nation that I love: India.
But swadharma, taken to its extreme, can lead to unbridled individualism and selfishness. It can give rise to citizens who do not stop to consider the impact of their swadharma, their Purpose, on others or even the society as a whole. They focus only on what they must do to realize their Purpose. Today, some scientists are working on projects which could dramatically impact society in a negative manner. Such as, genetically modified designer babies. And yet, they choose to continue, for they see their Purpose as the pure pursuit of science, and not its impact on society.
I believe that India, being the home of swadharma, had created many individuals lost in their own Purpose alone. The impact of their swadharma on society did not concern them. This may help us understand the mindset of Indian soldiers during the British raj, lost in their swadharma of being warriors, even if it meant dying for a foreign power. But not stopping to consider the impact of their actions on their own society.
The British understood our culture well. They used the swadharma of the martial people among Indians, and used our best against us, by giving them Purpose. Through pomp, ceremonies and rituals.
A society made up of individuals who are solely focused on living their Purpose can get atomized. Ironically, the society itself may fail to mobilize to pursue its Collective Purpose.
Now, I am not suggesting that we ignore our swadharma. It is our duty to live our life in alignment with our Purpose. But we must not forget our rajdharma either. Rajdharma, the duty towards the nation, is not just the preserve of the leaders. Rajdharma must also be followed by common citizens, all of us who live in this great land of ours.
Put another way, patriotism is as important as your personal Purpose.
Patriotism is a much abused word these days. Many quote Samuel Johnson out of context. He had said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Evidence suggests that Johnson was referring to false patriotism when he said this; and he did value true patriotism.
That is what I am proposing. True patriotism. Rajdharma. Deep and abiding love for our native land. Love towards all who live here. Constructive love, which allows us to question our leaders when we believe they are not working in our country's or state's interests. Love which encourages us to question our own fellow citizens on things which must be improved, for we want our land to be worthy of our ancestors.
To me, love for our land is non-negotiable. We have every right to dislike our government, but we cannot live in India and righteously exercise the right to hate our country. A nation is not built by those who hate it. It is built on the shoulders of those who love it.
Let's learn from the mistakes of Indians in the last few centuries. We must focus on our swadharma, our Purpose. But we must not forget our rajdharma, our duty to this great land of ours.
@authoramish
