Chapter Four
Religion in Indian Nationalism and
Independence Movement
104
In the previous chapters, the functions of religion were considered and the objective was also to
examine that in secular countries these functions can exist and this situation is not against
secularism, in contrast with political religion. So, these functions can be examined in India as a
secular state.
This country was under the colonial rule of the British and after a long struggle gained
freedom in 1947. In 1949, the constituent assembly enacted the new constitution which came
into effect in 1950. Thus, the contemporary history of this country can be divided into two stages
pre-independence and post-independence. India in these two stages has had different situation. In
these two stages, the communities in Indian society have played different roles. In the first stage,
Pakistan was still a part of India and a revolutionary situation existed within India which
prompted most of the communities to be united against the British for freedom. Eventually, the
inner differences gradually increased to an extent that it led to the separation of Pakistan in the
days of independence. During the second stage in the absence of the same foreign enemy and
separation of large part of Muslim there has been different situation with some change in the
function of religion.
The subcontinent of India has included various religions. There have been many religions
such as Hinduism, Islam, Christian, Sikh, Buddhism, and so on. In this research, the researcher
will focus on the two important religions, i.e. Hinduism and Islam. These two religions, as has
been already mentioned, have been important ones and have been practiced by larger numbers of
people in the country, in comparison to the other religions. In this chapter and the following one,
the roles and functions of these two religions during first stage of contemporary history of India
are investigated.
A) Religious Politics of British Government
The British ruled India for more than 100 years around the 19th century. The liberal and the
conservative leaders of India in this century perceived religion in terms of politics and politics in
terms of religion. The social background, acceptance of the superior political doctrine and
economic philosophy of the British rule, class interests and the perception of the social realities
of the religious reformers and the liberal leaders made them great defenders of the colonial rule.
105
The Raj was described as an "act of abundant mercy of Divine Providence” and the rulers were
looked upon as protectors and deliverers. The leaders supported free trade, settlement of
Europeans and commercialization of agriculture.1 The Bristish themselves also popularized some
pro-British religious terms. It was claimed that the British made an outstanding contribution in
making India modern, industrial, democratic and secular. Therefore, it was the duty of every
Indian to extend support and to be loyal to this government which was a 'gift of God' to their
country.2
During their reign, the colonial rulers not only insisted on describing India as a land of
disparate religious communities, castes, sects and tribes, but also contributed to the consolidation
of such primordial identities through the codification of Hindu and Muslim family laws,
compilation of ethnographic notes, and enumeration of the ‘peoples of India’ through decennial
censuses from 1881 onward. These measures encouraged communalism.3 So, ‘the British
deliberately created communal categories in politics as well as in administration, by encouraging
Muslim communalism. A similar approach was adopted in the case of various castes.’4 Besides,
they followed the politics of ‘divide and rule’ and pitched one community against the other to
weaken the freedom struggle. They reinforced a feeling of anxiety among sections of the Muslim
community concerning their wellbeing in a country that had a majority Hindu population and
emerging Hindu nationalist voices. In the following paragraphs, some cases related to British
politics are explained.
1) British and Fear of Some Primary Evidences of Unity
In the 1857 war of independence, Hindus and Muslims fought shoulder to shoulder against the
enemy. The Hindus as well as the Muslims had united against the British. Since the beginning of
freedom movement, also, in early 20th century, Hindus and Muslims together joined the
struggle.5
1
Shakir, 1986a, 135-6.
Moin Shakir, “Dynamics of Muslim Political Thought,” in Political Thought in Modern India, eds. Thomas
Pantham & Kenneth L Deutsch (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1986b), 143.
2
3
Madan, 2011, 267.
Shakir, 1986a, 145.
5
K. N. Kumar, Political Parties in India, their ideology and organization (New Delhi: Mittal Publications, 1990),
146. And,
4
106
Although Hindus and Muslims were urged to unite in fighting the common threat that the
British posed, but they did not fight as one people. On the contrary, rebel rhetoric seemed
obsessed at working out a new relationship between Hindus and Muslims in which each was
meant to sacrifice their own interest for the other’s religious scruples without sharing these in
any way. Instead of being related to one another by loyalty to the King, as had been the case with
religious and ethnic groups in times past, Hindus and Muslims had created a new model of
interaction, which its origin was in the rebel army. The following passage explains this new
relationship from a proclamation attributed to Bahadur Shah (1775 –1862), that proposing a
moral agreement between them:
They accordingly now ordered the Brahmans and others of their army to bite cartridges in the making up of
which fat had been used. The Mussulman soldiers perceived that by this expedient the religion of the Brahmans and
Hindus only was in danger, but nevertheless they also refused to bite them…. The slaughter of kine is regarded by
the Hindus as a great insult to their religion. To prevent this, a solemn compact or agreement has been entered into
by all the mahommedan chiefs of Hindustan, binding themselves that if the Hindus will come forward to slay the
English, the mahommedans will from that very day put a stop to the slaughter of cows, and those of them who will
not to do so, will be considered to have abjured the Kuran, and such of them as will eat beef will be regarded as
though they had eaten pork: but if the Hindus will not gird their loin to kill the English, but will try to save them,
they will be as guilty in the sight of God as though they had committed the sins of killing cows and eating flesh.1
These evidences and the fear of unity between two communities prompted the British to use
the policy of ‘divide and rule’ from the beginning of their governance. By following this policy,
the British began to instigate the Hindus against the Muslim and vice Versa.
2) Policy of ‘Divide and Rule’: Towards Pro-Muslim Policy
There is the premise that the British colonial policy in India was based on the policy of "Divide
and Rule.” It implied that the policy of English rulers was to uphold in full force the so-called
separation which existed between different religions and not to endeavour to amalgamate them.2
It has been one of the routine politics in British India that power at each level and especially
across levels is attained by dividing the opposition, not by oppressing it.3 So, during British
R. C. Agrawal, Indian Political System: Indian Government and Politics (New Delhi: S. Chand R Company, 2003),
78.
1
Quoted by: Faisal Devji, “The Mutiny to Come.” New Literary History. Volume 40. Number 2 (2009).
2
V. D. Chopra, Genesis of Indo-Pakistan Conflict on Kashmir (New Delhi: Patriot Publishers, 1990), 170.
3
Paul R. Brass, The Politics of India Since Independence (Cambridge University Press, 1994), 25.
107
government religion became a handle in the hands of rulers for the application of this policy. In
first war of Independence, 1857, the Hindus as well as the Musilm had united to throw the
British imperialism out but after the British followed this policy, they began to instigate the
Musilms against the Hindus and vice-versa.1 Thus, in this era, clearly, religion was used in favor
of British and had a negative function as a segmenting element for Indian.
In the colonial period, according to some writers, it was the divide-and-rule politics of the
colonial state that first created the religious communities and then set them up against each other.
By dividing Indian civil society along religious lines, the state had a perfect raison d’etre – to
ensure order.2 Some of the British authors such as Steel, Croker, Philip Mason and Greenberger
by their writings revealed a distinctly pro-Muslim bias and a veiled attempt to encourage the
Muslims to look down upon the Hindus. They tried to sow the seeds of communal dissension all
over India.3
The colonial rulers found that religion could be profitably exploited in their approach to the
Indian people, although the colonial rulers were not always responsible for all religious or
communal feuds. They were not the authors of religious divisions but they utilized the division
of religious feelings and the element of race to their advantage. They found Divide and Rule to
be a useful motto and division of the Indian people along religious lines the bulwark of British
rule in India. The following statement confirms this policy well. As far back as 1821, a British
officer writing under the name of "Carnaticus" in the Asiatic Review of May, 1821, declared that
"Divide et impera should be the motto of our Indian administration, whether political, civil or
military.”4 In 1862, Charles Wood pointed out to the Viceroy that: "If all India was to unite
against at how long could we maintain ourselves.”5 Thus, the motivation of the colonial rulers
was to maintain and to preserve the British Empire, rather than protecting or promoting one
community and its interests against another community. Their object was “to check the
1
Agrawal, 2003, 78.
2
Peter Van Der Veer, “Writing Violence,” in Making India Hindu, ed. David Ludden (New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 2006), 261.
3
Chaudhry, 1978, 159.
Chopra, 1990, 170.
5
Shakir, 1986a,164.
4
108
politicization of the Indian people, to end their consolidation and unification and to disrupt the
process of the Indian nation in the Making.”1
The British rulers extended support to any movement or agitation, which could drive a wedge
among the Indians and weaken their unity. Of such supports Shakir mentiones some instances:
‘Support to the Aligarh movement in the last quarter of the 19th century, encouragement to Hindi
and Hindu recruitment in the United Provincial administration in the beginning of the 20th
century, deliberate attempt to strengthen anti-Congress Governments in different provinces after
1920, and acceptance of all the demands of the Muslim communal leaders in the Communal
Award.’2 Willingdon described this approach in 1932, as following: "We cannot afford to be
wholly without friends.”3
This politics is well shown in the late of 19th century especially after foundation of the
Congress Party. The attitude of friendly neutrality, which the Government had assumed towards
the Congress at the time of its birth very soon, gave place to one of active hostility. In 1888,
during the fourth session of the Congress at Allahabad, the change in the attitude of the
Government was quite apparent. For the Government, its future line of action was obvious. If
they were to counteract the growing power of the Congress, they must find friends among the
Muslims and start the policy of divide and rule. This policy was started through Beck, the
principal of the Aligarh College, whom Sir John Strachey described as, "An Englishman, who
was engaged in Empire-building activities in a far-off land." In 1889, Beck sponsored a
memorial of Muslims against the Bill introduced by Charles Bradlaugh with the object of
introducing representative institutions in India. In 1893, the Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental
Defense Association was formed with the active help of the Government to counteract the
growing popularity of the Congress.4
Thus, the government applied the policy of divide and rule. After founding of the Congress,
the traditional anti-Muslim policy of the government was gradually reversed and it became antiHindu. When the Extremists, began to make their weight felt in the beginning of the 20th
century, the government was exasperated more and they adopted the Machiavellian game, even
1
Shakir, 1986a, 164.
Shakir, 1986b, 164.
3
Quoted by: Ibid., 165.
4
Rama Nand Aggarwala, “‘Divide – and- Rule’ Tactics,” in The British in India; Imperialism or Trusteeship?, ed.
Lewis, Martin Deming (India: D. C. Heath and Company, 1965), 82.
2
109
more blatantly. In 1905, the government partitioned the Bengal Presidency for reasons of
administrative efficiency. But it was realized as a clever move to drive a wedge between the two
communities and to weaken the forces of the Bengal nationalism by weaning away Muslims
from the Congress. The Congress saw in it the imperial design of divide and rule, but Bengali
Muslims generally welcomed the measure as a means of escaping Hindu economic domination.
The policy of divide and rule was intensified after the entry of the Extremists. It was natural that
the British government felt the danger, as the Extremists like Tilak led the Congress to pass in
1906 the resolution asking for self-government like that of the United Kingdom or Colonies. The
Extremists had openly challenged the government.1 For the nationalists, the idea of separate
Hindu and Muslim identity had no natural basis and also the two communities were politically
separated through the maneuvers of communal forces and imperial divide and rule.2
The British officials treated the Muslims as a distinct political group in India. They were
nominated to serve on the Imperial Legislative Council and on the Education and Public Service
Commissions. Before the introduction of the elective principle into the constitution of rural local
governments as a result of Ripon's Reforms (1883), the Muslims were officially nominated to
such bodies. The government of India resolutions of 23 October 1884 (which spoke of it being
desirable to give Muslims exceptional assistance in some respects) and of 15 July 1885 (which
assumed that the Muslims as such aspired to rival Hindus in State employment) "helped to
endow the Muslims with a separate social as well as religious personality, which needed to be
recognized in British policy.”3
The British government saw clearly that the game of politics could no longer be played in
India without helping the Muslims. By then, Punjab, Maharashtra and Bengal had emerged as
vibrant regions of nationalism, and the government had no intention to tolerate any further
consolidation of national aspirations. For Lord Curzon, it would serve plural objectives. First, the
partition would appease loyal Muslims; second, it would effectively break-up integrated and
united nationalist forces in Bengal; third, in turn, it would adversely affect Congress objectives
of secular, national integration; and, finally, it would pave the way to Muslim unity and
1
2
Aggarwala, 1965, 83; Madan, 2011, 268.
Bidyut Chakrabarty, Indian Politics and Society Since Independence (New York: Routledge, 2008), 44.
3
Uma Kaura, Muslims and Indian Nationalism: the Emergence of the Demand for Indian’s Partition 1928-40 (New
Delhi: Manohar Book Service, 1977), 9-10.
110
organization. It was, thus, the step to culminate the process of institutionalization of separatist,
divisive and sub- nationalist forces.1 He did not hide the major purpose of the scheme of
partition: it not only relieved administrative pressures, it also helped create a Muslim province,
'where Islam would be predominant and its followers in the ascendancy.’2 Lord Curzon's
favorite, Bampfylde Fuller, the first Lt. Governor of East Bengal, 'openly announced a policy of
preference for Muslims and prejudice against Hindus and deliberately embarked upon a
campaign of repression and humiliation of the Hindus.’3
The motives of the partition of Bengal, allegedly administrative, were really communal and
religious and a beginning was being made by an imperial Christian power to drive a wedge
between the two major communities of India, the Hindus and the Muslims. The reaction against
the partition, also, spontaneous and universal, was largely religious—Swadeshi, Boycott,
Sankirtan parties, temple worship at Kalighat and Nat Mandir, prayer, fasting, Rakhi Bandhan
and so on and so forth.4
After the foundation of the Muslim League and Minto's concessions of separate electorates,
weightage and reservation of seats to the Muslims naturally poisoned Hindu-Muslim relations. It
was quite on the cards that the thought of Syed Ahmad dominated the Muslim community in
spite of occasional opposition by individual Muslims. They were all Muslims first and Indians
afterwards. The gulf thus created between two communities was further widened by designing
Englishmen interested in the politics of divide and rule. Bampfydle Fuller, Lt. Governor of
Eastern Bengal and Assam, narrated a parable, "I said that I was like a man who was married to
two wives, one a Hindu the other a Muhammedan—both young and charming—but was forced
into the arms of one of them by the rudeness of the other.”5
The partition of Bengal in 1905, according to Jalal, had provided the main motivation for the
orchestration of the Muslim claim to separate political representation and the establishment of
the self-professedly communal All-India Muslim League in December 1906. But it was the
Morley-Minto reforms of 1909 which institutionalized what until then had been a dominant
1
Alok Mathur, The Two-Nation Theory, A Study in the Context of Identity Crisis in Pakistan (Jaipur: Aalekh
publishers, 1994), 12.
2
Ibid.
Ibid., 13.
4
Chaudhry, 1978, 287.
5
Ibid., 177-8.
3
111
colonial perception of the importance of religious divisions in Indian society by granting
Muslims separate electorates in representative bodies at all levels of the electoral system. It gave
Muslims the status of an all-India political category but one effectively consigned to being a
permanent minority in any scheme of constitutional reforms. It had large consequences for
regionally differentiated, economically disparate, and ideologically divided Muslims and, by
extension, for Congress' agendas of an inclusionary and secular nationalism.1
The politics of ‘Divide and rule’ had approximately been continued up to early 1940s. For
example in 1941 when Cabinet crisis of Bengal came to a head John Herbert a colonial governor
of Bengal tried to use of this politics between fazlul Huq as a Muslim leader and Mookrejee as a
Hindu leader, and also between Huq and Muslim League Party and sometimes complying with
Muslim League in that province. From 1943 onwards, the political situation in India changed.
The transfer of power and high politics of partition overwhelmed provincial politics.2 Finally,
this politics caused to the religious communalism and that also caused to final partition of
Bengalis between Muslim and Hindu (Pakistan and India) in 1947.
3) Demand of Separate Electorates in 1906
In the year 1906 something happened, which colored the whole subsequent national movement
in India and had had far-reaching effects on the Hindu-Muslim relations. In 1906, Lord Minto,
viceroy of India, had formed a committee to consider the necessity of further reforms for India.
This immediately led to a Deputation of Muslims, headed by His Highness the Agha Khan,
which met Lord Minto at Simla on October 1, 1906 and claimed separate electorates, i.e.,
communal representation from the Imperial Legislative Council down to the District Boards and
weightage to Muslims as something which was absolutely essential to protect their legitimate
Interests. Lord Minto was ready to accept the demands of the Muslims and said:
The pith of your address as I understand it, is a claim that in any system of representation, whether it affects a
Municipality, a District Board or a Legislature, ... the Mohammedan community would be represented as a body . . .
you justly claim that your position should be estimated not merely on your numerical strength but in respect to the
political importance of your community and service that it has rendered to the Empire. I am entirely in accord.... I
1
Ayesha Jalal, “Exploding Communalism: the Politics of Muslim Identity in South Asia,” in Nationalist Movement
in India: A Reader, ed. Sekhar Bandyopadhyay (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009), 187.
2
Sana Aiyar, “Fazlul Huq, Region and Religion in Bengal, The Forgotten Alternative of 1940–43,” Modern Asian
Studies, Volume 42, Issue 06 (2008).
112
am as firmly convinced, as I believe you to be, that any electoral representation in India would be doomed to
mischievous failure, which aimed at granting a personal enfranchisement regardless of the beliefs and traditions of
the communities composing the population of this continent.1
However, Lord Minto gave them what they came for: an assurance that the administration
would recognize them as the voice of India's Muslims, who made up 20 to 25 percent of the
population. The delegation promptly founded the Muslim League. As a British official had said,
the meaning of the above meeting was "nothing less than the pulling back of 62 million of people
from joining the ranks of the seditious opposition.”2 The British willingly granted the Muslim
League its main demands: reserved positions for Muslims in government jobs and separate
Muslim electorates to choose representatives in any elected councils. This showed ‘an
underrepresentation of Muslims in government service, but it was British policy not because
Muslims were relatively more backward or oppressed than Hindus.’3
Therefore, they showed an eagerness to agree, which almost amounted to an encouragement.
And, the principle of separate electorates was accepted. It was introduced in the 1909 Reforms.
The Hindus and Muslims were to vote separately for their respective nominees, as a result of
which the Hindus and Muslims were never united in a real manner hereafter, except probably
during the days of Khilafat for a short time. According to Aggarwala, it was as ‘the poison
injected by Lord Minto into the body-politic of India.’4 Because of this, some believe that ‘the
real father of Pakistan was not Jinnah or Rahimattoola but Lord Minto.’5
4) Communal Award
After repeated demands made by Muslim groups at some conferences, the British Prime minister
declared a "Communal Award" which conceded to the Muslims almost all they had asked.6 With
Indian representatives unable to agree over representation under the proposed reforms, the
British government published its communal award for India in 16th August 1932, a step that both
reinforced the notion that Indians identified themselves fundamentally by their religion, and
seemed to indicate the continued presence of communal antipathy, something the reforms'
supporters counted on for their strategy's success. Moreover, the controversy over separate
1
Aggarwala, 1965, 83.
Chakraborty, 2013, 132.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid., 83.
5
Ibid.
6
Rajni Kothari, Politics in India (Delhi: Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, 1970), 68.
2
113
representation for untouchables under the award, and the split between Gandhi and some highcaste Hindus over the question of untouchability, made more credible the idea that caste division
would ultimately prevent any real Hindu political unity.1
The contents of the Communal Award showed that Willingdon's views on supporting the
Muslim as their friends had finally prevailed. The Award conceded most of the Muslim
demands. In the Punjab, Muslims were given 89 seats, an obvious majority of two. In Bengal the
Muslims were allotted 119 seats, a majority of the Indian seats. Large weightage was given to
Europeans so that they could maintain a balance between the two Indian communities. The
Muslim demand for the continuation of separate electorates was also conceded.2 The Communal
Award, according to Mathur, made matters worse by providing separate electorates to depressed
classes, Sikhs, Christians, Anglo- Indians and Europeans also.3
5) Pro-Hindu Policy
Some pro-Muslim policies have been mentioned above. Here, the researcher discusses some
reasons of the pro-Hindu policy. On the one hand, with the beginning of the World War I and
affront of Turky and Britan the Muslims, on whose support the Government was so far relying,
began to show signs of disaffection and their further appeasement appeared to be impossible.
The Muslim sentiment could no longer be placated for British relations with the Sultan of
Turkey, the revered Caliph of the Muslims, were gradually worsening because Turkey was on
the side of Germany in the impending war between England and Germany. At the same time
Muslim sympathy could not altogether be alienated because Muslim soldiers of the Indian army
might be required to fight against the Turks—their co-religionists.4
On the other hand, for Britain it was also unsafe to keep the Hindus as the majority
community in a state of antagonism forever. Some issues such as; the partition of Bengal, undue
favors shown to the Muslim minority, relentless repression of the nationalists and callous
indifference to the demand for self-government had all annoyed the Hindus. Crewe and Hardinge
therefore, formulated the policies that would soothe the ruffled mind of the Hindus without
antagonizing the Muslims, and met the nationalist challenge concerning the transfer of
1
Muldoon, 2008.
Kaura, 1977, 86.
3
Mathur, 1994, 28.
4
Chaudhry, 1978, 206.
2
114
responsibility. So, the British politics reversed to Hindus. The first shift in the pro-Hindu policy
of the Viceroy was indicated by the annulment of the partition of Bengal in 1911.1
B) Hinduism in Indian Nationalism and Independence Movement
In the present research, ‘Indian Nationalism’ is not regarded as a synonym of ‘Hindu
Nationalism’, as some Hindu nationalists emphasized. Indeed, these two conceptions are
different so that in Hindu nationalism apart from Hindu race as a common factor, Hinduism is
seen as a part of ‘Hinduness’. While the followers of other religions have also had a role in
Indian nationalism, and also often Hindu Nationalism has had communal position.2 So, Hindu
nationalism is different from Indian nationalism. However, apart from Hindu nationalism,
Hinduism has also played an important role in Indian nationalism. As Sarkar mentions ‘the
enormous overlap in personnel, assumptions, and symbols between mainstream Indian
nationalism and Hindu communalism is too obvious to need much elaboration. Once can think of
the “Bande Mataram” ("Hail to Thee, Mother") hymn cum-slogan, central to much anti-British
patriotism and at the same time a Hindu rallying cry, at least in Bengal, during confrontations
with Muslims.’3 Hindu nationalism has acted as an ideology against British that rejected nonviolence. Some figures of Hinduism looked at British colonialism as posing a threat to Hindu
civilization.4
Unlike the notion of Nationalism as it appeared in Europe as a secular doctrine, in South Asia
especially India religion has had important role in nationalism so that this area evidenced the
growth of religious nationalist movements.5 In this stage of history of India because of the plenty
of nations and ethnics in subcontinent, religion played an important role in the nationalism
1
Chaudhry, 1978, 206-8.
Partha Chatterjee, “History and the Nationalization of Hinduism,” in Hinduism Reader, eds. Dalmia, Vasudha and
Heinrich von Stietencron (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2007), 257-8.
2
3
Sumit Sarkar, “Indian Nationalism and the Politics of Hindutva,” in Making India Hindu, ed. David Ludden (New
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2006), 272.
4
Christophe Jaffrelot, “The Vishva Hindu Parishad; A Nationalist but Mimetic Attempt at Federating the Hindu
Sects,” In Hinduism Reader, eds. Dalmia, Vasudha and Heinrich von Stietencron (New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 2007b).
5
Harnik Deol, Religion and Nationalism in India, The Case of the Punjab (London: Routledge, 2000).
115
against British. At least it declined the diversities to two important religions Hinduism and Islam.
These religions covered the most of diversities and acted as revolutionary ideologies. Religion
became crucial in the transformation of the public spheres in British India and in the postcolonial
countries of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh as well as Sri Lanka. Many of the leading political
parties and social movements mobilize people around religious issues.1
Indian religions were transformed in opposition to the state, and religion became more
important in the emergent public sphere. Religion was transformed and molded in a national
form that defined itself in opposition to the colonizing state. The denial of participation in the
political institutions of the colony led Indians to develop an alternative set of institutions of a
jointly political and religious nature. Indians conceived the colonial state as fundamentally
Christian not neutral and secular.2 The nationalist movement was Hindu-dominated effort.
Indeed, it had taken on some of the trappings of Hinduism itself, with the use of religious
symbols, Hindu songs, and especially the very public piety of Gandhi. One British administrator
in the 1950s had mentioned that there is a ‘close association of aggressive Hinduism with
nationalism.’3
The 19 century was the time of emergence of first stages of Indian nationalism, and
beginning of mutual interaction between politics and religion. As a first mark of this the
researcher can mention the slogans of the Great Revolt in 1857 such as "Din, Din" (Religion,
Religion), "Khun, Khun" (Blood. Blood), "Maro Feringhi Ko" (Kill the Europeans), Swadharm
(Religion), "Swadesh" (My Country), "Swarajya" (Freedom), "Har, Har, Mahadev" (Victory be
to Lord Mahadev).4 In the next historical stages, in the most political activities, especially use of
religion in line of nationalism, this mode is seen. In the fact that every leading personality, from
the first messenger of revolutionary nationalism B.G. Tilak to many political leaders including
Mahatma Gandhi, feel it necessary to write new commentary on the ancient and religious text in
terms of the political and social life of modern India.5 Here the researcher has a cursory glance
on this interaction.
1
Peter Van Der Veer, “Religion in South Asia,” Annual Review Anthropology, 31 (2002), accessed at:
www.annualreviews.org
2
Ibid.
3
Muldoon, 2008.
4
Chaudhry, 1978, 3.
5
Ibid., 32-3.
116
The Hindu leaders nurtured Nationalist movement by increasingly the use of more exciting
emotional appeal through the works in the various fields of literature, music, drama, and other
arts. While the evocative appeal of such cultural products tremendously aided the nationalist
cause, they also raised some delicate religious issues. They used the popularity of Hindu
devotional poets. For example, Brahmo reformers in Bengal used the public forums provided by
religious fairs and festivals to popularize patriotic themes and songs in large-scale gatherings of
people. Despite their religious origin or regional source, the spirit and content of some of these
songs were designed for wider appeal and transcended regional barriers. The significant role of a
song like ‘Bande Mataram' with religious bias, in national mobilization across regions was hard
to dispute. Besides, two dramatic songs were written in Bengali by Rabindranath Tagore that
eventually, one became the national anthem of India and the other, of Bangladesh. The
references to historical events or religious symbols in literary works in regional languages often
alienated members of particular religious communities. For instance, ‘some historical novels in
19th century Bengal written by nationally prominent authors of Hindu origin were criticized for
their bias against Muslim characters or episodes of history.’1
In the next stages, deep religious commitments and political uses of religion for mobilization
by Gandhi and Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, and at the same time their profound contributions to
composite nationalism, are other examples. So, the nationalist movement witnessed extensive
use of religion and religious symbols. Evidently, in a religious and fairly underdeveloped society
it was hard to avoid the use of religious symbols as a resource for mobilization particularly at a
level of communication. Indeed, the instrumental use of religious appeal frequently contributed
to mobilization for the common cause of anti-colonial struggle and political amity among
religious groups. For instance, the religious symbolism was frequently and effectively used to
mobilize peasants to secure their rights through organized struggle. Swami Sahajanand, one of
the successful organizers of peasant movements in the 1930s, was a Hindu religious activist who
made extensive use of religious symbolism and traditional ties. ‘His effectiveness in utilizing
these means of mass mobilization served well the ends pursued by the Kisan Sabha (All India
Peasants Union), its close relation with Congress, and also building bridges between peasants of
1
Jyotirindra Dasgupta, “Of Hindus and their Nationalisms: Religion, Representation and Democracy,” in India’s
2004 Elections; Grass – roots and National Perspectives, eds. Ramashray Roy and Paul Wallace (New Delhi: Sage
Publications, 2007), 88-9.
117
different religious affinity.’1 Here, the researcher explains some political uses of religion by
various movements and leaders.
1) The Impact of Religious Reform Movements
The first stirrings of national awakening in India were visible through the religious reform
movements of the 19th century such as the Brahmo Samaj, the Arya Samaj, the Rama Krishna
Mission, the Theosophical Society, the Aligarh Movement and others. These Movements directly
and indirectly have had important impact on nationalism movement during 19 and 20th centuries.
Here it is necessary to mention them briefly.
The Brahmo Samaj: It was the first and the foremost one of the above-mentioned
movements that established in 1828 and Led by Raja Ram Mohan Roy who was hailed as ‘the
Father of Indian Nationalism.’ The Raja tried to interpret the highest elements of Islam,
Christianity and modern Rationalism or Humanism and transformed them into a single creed
which he discovered in the ancient Upanishadic philosophy of his own community.2
The Arya Samaj: It was another religious movement of great cultural significance founded
in 1875 at Bombay by Swami Dayanand Saraswati (1824- 1883). The Arya Samaj, according to
Jaffrelot, ‘marked the transition of neo-Hinduism from reformism to revivalism.’3 It was
different from the Brahmo Samaj so that it was not imitative of Christianity or Islam and did not
seek merely the reform of the Hindu religion. Its battle slogans were 'Back to the Vedas' and
'India for Indians'. It was a religious and social movement and had no active interest in politics
practically.4
The Rama Krishna Mission: Rama Krishna Paramhans (1836-1886) was born in 1836 at
Calcutta. In 1855, he was appointed assistant priest in the temple of Kali at Dakshineshwar near
Calcutta. A further response to the western challenge came from the followers of him. "If Ram
Mohan was the mind, Dayauand the physical arm, Rama Krishna was the soul of new India. He
1
Dasgupta, 2007, 98-9.
Chaudhry, 1978, 5.
3
Jaffrelot, 2007b, 29.
4
Chaudhry, 1978, 8.
2
118
was one of the most profound, hallucinating mystics produced by India at any time of its long
history.”1
The Theosophical Society: A Russian person Madam Helena Petrona Blavatsky-and an
American military officer Col. Henry Steele Olcott founded it in 1875 in New York. And it also
inaugurated a movement of religious reform. The term Theosophy is combined of two Greek
words 'Theos' meaning God and 'Sophia’ meaning wisdom. It thus implies wisdom of God. The
Theosophists extracted inspiration from scriptures available in India, Egypt, Greece and
Christianity though Theosophy considers, above all, ancient Hinduism. Both the founders came
to India on an invitation by Swami Dayanand. In 1893 Annie Besant (1847 -1933), an English
woman, the most brilliant exponent of Theosophy, came to India and joined the Society.
Thereafter she became Hindu and worked for the revival of Hinduism and uplift of the Indian
nation. In her opinion, "religion is essential to patriotism because nothing else destroys the
separative tendency in men and prevents the disintegration of bodies of workers by continual
sub-divisions. Religion alone teaches man to feel his unity with his fellows and leads him to
sacrifice the smaller to the lamer self... it is religion which has ever bound individuals into a tribe
and tribes into a nation." She wrote and lectured profusely on Hindu culture and philosophy. She
translated the Gita and lectured the Upanishads philosophy. In 1905, Besant wrote that the needs
of India are ‘an education founded on Indian ideals and enrichment not dominated by the thought
and culture of the west.’2
Theosophical Society of India had important impact on the political events in the late 19th
century. Indeed, ‘the Theosophical leaders have openly claimed the fathership of the Indian
National Congress for the late Mr. A.O. Hume who is justly called the Father of the National
Congress was a Theosophist.’3 Many other Theosophists helped the Congress in its development.
It has also been claimed that the idea of the Congress was ‘first mooted the previous year, in
December 1884, at a meeting of the leading delegates to the Theosophical Convention and some
friends and sympathisers of the Movement, who had been present at the Convention, gathered at
1
Chaudhry, 1978, 11.
Ibid., 16-17.
3
Ibid., 19.
2
119
the house of Dewan Bahadur Raghunath Rao after the Convention was over and laid down plans
for convening the great national assembly.’1
The Home Role Movement: In 1916, Tilak established his Home Rule League with Joseph
Baptista as President and N.C. Kelkar as Secretary. Thereafter in the same year Annie Besant
joined Indian politics and she also inaugurated her Home Rule League, with branches shortly
afterwards at Bombay, Ahmadnagar and Madras. By her stirring speeches, extensive tours,
impressive articles and distribution of vast propaganda literature she popularized the Home Rule
Movement and set up Home Rule organizations all over India. These two Leagues of Tilak and
Besant worked in close cooperation with each other. Their joint attempts popularized the Home
Rule Movement by bringing into the two important factors: ‘the religious coloring of Hinduism
and Theosophy and the participation of women.’2
In next stages, the Extremist Movement regarded some of these movements as improper and
unrealistic to beg for small concessions from the British Government. Therefore, they took some
radical methods.
2) Extremist Nationalist Movement and Religion
Certain features of the Indian Extremist Movement in the long course of its history were
noteworthy. From the very beginning, the movement exhibited two distinct trends of the
spiritualization of politics as represented by Sri Aurobindo and of preparing the people for the
struggle of independence by diverting the religious enthusiasm of them into political channels as
advocated by Tilak. “These two modes of mixing religion with politics did not run on parallel
lines but were often fused in the same political movement led by the extremist leaders.”3
Thereafter, they were gradually seen in three groups: pure extremists, terrorists and
revolutionaries. The first one led by B.G. Tilak, B.C. Pal and Lala Lajpat Rai, and the two others
by Barindra Kumar Ghose, P. Mitra, the Chapekar brothers, W.B. Phadke, Aurobindo Ghose,
Shyamji Krishna Varma, Lala liar Dayal, V.D. Savarkar, Madan Lal Dhingra and others. All
these groups, with the extermination of the Britishers from India as their sole aim, sought the aid
1
Chaudhry, 1978, 19.
Ibid., 213-4.
3
Ibid., 27-8.
2
120
of religion to propagate their political principles. Some leaders like Tilak, B.C. Pal and
Aurobindo Ghose tried even to spiritualize politics and, the terrorists and the revolutionaries after
them drew inspiration from the teachings of the Gita and cheerfully sacrificed their lives in the
service of India. The program of action formulated by the Extremists—Celebration of the
Ganpati and Shivaji festivals, Swarajya, Swadeshi, Boycott, national education, national
judiciary and Passive Resistance—was also in line with Hindu ideals and traditions and was
deeply embedded in the religious psychology of the people. In short, the whole of the Extremist
movement was a call to go back to Indian ancient religious and cultural traditions and following
the Hindu scriptures as its religious and philosophical weapons to meet the challenge of an alien
civilization.1
In their use of religion as a mobilizing force in politics or communalism, the Extremists were
building on a tendency that had caught hold within the middle class in the previous decades.
Although their main target was the British, some of them, including Tilak, also supported
provocative anti-Islamic campaigns, such as those against the slaughter of cows.2 Some elites
and leaders’ positions are mentioned below:
a) Bankim Chandra Chatterjee
Bankim Chandra Chatterjee (1838-94), a Bengali writer, poet and journalist, was a composer of
India’s national song ‘Vande Mataram’. He was a strong believer in Hinduism and in some of his
religious writings like `Samya', 'Krishna Charitra' and `Dharmatattva' he tried to outline the
essential principles of the Hindu faith. The Neo-Hinduism that he preached lay down that the
salvation of India lay in reviving the spiritual ideals of ancient nation-builders.3
Bankim's nationalism was firmly grounded in religion. He believed that without religion
nationalism tended to become aggressive, even anti-social. He, therefore, turned nationalism
itself into a religion and wanted to raise nationalism to the dignity of a religion. He tried to tie
modern nationalism with religious symbols. In his well-known novel, `Anand Math', he
presented India "as goddess Kali, black because of intense misery, naked because denuded of
wealth, with human skulls round her neck because the country was no less than a vast burial
ground. But the future India would be like radiant Durga who will annihilate the 'demons' and
1
Chaudhry, 1978, 286-7.
Chakraborty, 2013, 130.
3
Chaudhry, 1978, 103.
2
121
usher in an era of plenty and prosperity.”1 He made patriotism popular among mass by linking it
with religion.
However, his patriotism is deeply tinged with religion. He perceived that the strongest
sentiment of Eastern civilization including India is the religious sentiment. Apart from merging
patriotic sentiments with religion, he conceived nationality itself under the category of religion.
According to Chaudhry, the master idea of Bankim's writings was the religion of patriotism. ‘In
`Anand Math' this idea is the keynote of the whole book and received its perfect lyrical
expression in the great song which has become the national anthem of united India. Bankim
Chandra gave to his country not only the religion of patriotism prescribed for his countrymen,
not only the way of Karmayoga for their salvation but also held before them the vision of the
Mother.’2 Bankim, although took no part in politics, first employed the triple appeal of language,
history and religion which enabled Hindu nationalism to win widespread support in the first
decade of the 20th century.3
b) Bal Gangadhar Tilak
Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856-1920) was born in a middle class Chitpavan Brahman family. By the
late 1890s, in the course of agitations, Tilak who led peasants gained the nickname "Lokamanya"
beloved of the people.4 Tilak's political ideas were formulated when he was national leader of
India's freedom movement during 1885-1920.5 He has been remembered as ‘the Father of India's
Revolution.’ His political philosophy ‘was integrated with the value system of the Indian
civilization and his nationalism was firmly grounded in religion.’6
He pursued a spiritualized politics and not materialistic or hedonistic ethics. He was a devout
Hindu, although he had commitment to the liberal values. Tilak believed that Hindu philosophy
was superior to other philosophies and religions. He wrote the Gita religion 'is a permanent,
undauntable religion and the Blessed Lord has not felt the necessity for Hindus to rely on any
1
Quoted by: Chaudhry, 1978, 104.
Ibid., 106.
3
Ibid., 105.
4
Ibid, 130.
5
N. R. Inamdar, “The political Ideas of Lokmanya Tilak,” in Political Thought in Modern India, eds. Thomas
Pantham & Kenneth L Deutsch (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1986), 110.
2
6
Chaudhry, 1978, 39.
122
other book, or religion.’1 In relation with the impact of religion on Tilak's life and political
philosophy, Gita had important role. His commentary Gita (Gita Rahasya) written in prison
attracted much attention among not only religious people but also the political and social
workers. For him the message of the Gita was primarily the call to action. He had said, “The
study of the Gita, Ramayan and Mahabharata produce the same ideals throughout the country.
[...] If we lay stress on it for getting all the minor differences that exist between different sects,
then by the grace of Providence we shall ere long be able to consolidate all the different sects
into a mighty Hindu nation. This ought to be the ambition of every Hindu.”2 This thinking about
Hinduism had deep impact over the mass mind. As a political realist, he even believed that the
Gita offered justification for violent action. This part of Tilak's interpretation appealed also to the
revolutionaries and the terrorists of his day. He was, therefore, described as "the Father of Indian
unrest" and the British Government held him guilty of promoting violence and sedition.3
He looked to religion as a unifying force and used the revivalist method to awaken the
people. His motive in appealing to the religious faith of the people was to use this faith as an
instrument to national awakening and to give an ethical and moral basis to the political struggle.4
In the light of these purpose he regarded the religious festivals. So, historical legacies and
religious unity were a portion of Tilak’s conception of Indian nationalism. Tilak thought of
nationalism was operating at both regional and the national levels. He believed that ‘a regional
historical hero or a regional religious symbol could concretize the national sentiment in the
people.’5 He appreciated the fact that the Hindu epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, had
made unity of thought and conduct among the Hindus from the Himalayas to Kanyakumari.
Tilak pointed out that although different kings ruled over different parts of India, there has been
a sort of 'Hindu Rusthum in the sense that there was a religious unity among the Hindus from
Kashmir to Cape Comorin and from Puri to Dwarka.’6
From 1898 to 1908, Tilak was at the peak of his political career national leader. The call of
"Swarajya as my birth right” was raised by Tilak and ‘a constructive program of practical action
based upon religious sanction was drawn up to back it. But Tilak's campaign for self-government
1
Inamdar, 1986, 112.
Chaudhry, 1978, 31.
3
Ibid., 30.
4
Ibid., 32.
5
Inamdar, 1986, 115.
6
Ibid., 117.
2
123
to have the Congress resort to passive resistance led to the split of the Congress.’1 Tilak's
Extremist wing of Congress distinguished itself by this demand for immediate swaraj as opposed
to gradual Indianization of the regime and by transfusion of Hindu revivalism into politics.2 Both
he and his extremist followers broke away from the moderates. In the wake of the terrorist acts of
the Bengal revolutionaries, Tilak was charged with sedition. In the court, Tilak declared: ‘I
maintain that I am innocent. There are higher powers that rule the destiny of things and it may be
the will of Providence that the cause which I represent may prosper more by my suffering than
by remaining free.’3
Hence, Tilak's conception of nationalism was ‘a combination of the Vedanta ideal of the
spiritual unity of mankind and the Western notions of nationalism.’4 Unlike the westernized
moderates with a secular outlook in politics, Tilak invoked the aid of religion for arousing
patriotic pride and political awakening among the Hindus in order to make them strong and
united.5 According to Chaudhry:
In reality, he "brought political philosophy in India from Heaven to Earth, from the Council Hall or the
Congress Mandap to the street and the market... His attempt to democratize the political movement and bring it
home vividly into the consciousness of the average man, infused a new life and vigor into the movement and gave it
a very different character… To bring in the mass of the people, to found the greatness of the future on the greatness
of the past, to infuse Indian politics with Indian religious ferver are the indispensable conditions for a great and
powerful awakening in India. Others - writers, thinkers, spiritual leaders - had seen this truth; Tilak was the first to
bring it into the actual field of practical politics." By his stirring articles in the Kesari and the Mahratta, Tilak not
only aroused feelings of national pride in the past and confidence in the future but also encouraged militant methods
in politics which led to the assassination of two British officials, Mr. Rand and Lt. Ayerst, in Poona in 1897. "The
trial of the Chapekar brothers, the murderers of these two European Plague officers… was looked upon as a romance
in crime. The Chapekars met their fate heroically and for the first time showed to the country how religious
enthusiasm of the most orthodox kind could be Combined political aspirations of the most revolutionary
nature...They were the first to invoke Gita in support of political action of that kind and somehow or other people all
over India believed that Tilak was their inspirer." Tilak was tried for fomenting the spirit of sedition and sentenced
to eighteen months imprisonment.6
Religious Festival in Tilak’s Politics: Ganesh and Shivaji
Tilak believed that ‘nationalism could be promoted and strengthened if the peoples'
psychological bonds are given symbolic expressions of an objective, visible or concrete type,
1
Inamdar, 1986, 111.
Chakraborty, 2013, 130.
3
Inamdar, 1986, 111.
4
Ibid., 116.
5
Chaudhry, 1978, 28.
6
Ibid., 29-30.
2
124
namely, flags, insignia and the celebration of social and religious festivals.’1 Accordingly, he
revived the Ganesh (Ganapati) festival and used it as an instrument to unite of Brahmans and
non-Brahmans. He also played a leading role in organizing Shivaji festivals. Tilak propagated his
ideas through founding two organs; The Maharashtrian weekly Kesari and the English
newspaper The Mahratta. He carried on an incessant propaganda for the revival of the Hindu
customs and traditions. He actively participated in the anti-cow slaughter agitation and the
organization of annual festivals in honor of Ganesh or Ganpati the elephant-headed Hindu God
of wisdom and success in 1893, and Shivaji the celebrated hero (1627/1630 –1680) of Indian
history and the founder of the Mahratta Empire, in 1895.2
In Tilak’s words, "For political union religious union is indispensable and that the Ganpati
festival is the best means that could be thought of in the present circumstances to bind the
Hindus in the worship of a common God."3 In answering some critics of liberals, he had quoted
some analogies from the history of Greece and Rome. ‘The great unifying and rousing effect of
the Olympian and Pythian festivals and also of the Circus was emphasized with convincing
force.’ In 1896 a correspondent also for improving the Ganesh celebrations suggested that ‘the
festival should be utilized for political purposes by organizing lectures on current political topics
and composing songs to be sung before the people.’4
Tilak believed that his political philosophy could bear fruit only if the people were plunged
in honor for the glories of their ancient past. Thus, he focused their attention on such social
functions as the Ganesh and Shivaji festivals because he felt that "religious ceremonials of
popular Hinduism constitute powerful media for influencing the popular mind.”5 Tilak
transformed the Ganesh festival from a private affair and a ceremonial ritual in a Hindu family
into a public festival in 1893. The Hindus organized themselves into groups and parties singing
songs containing political and moral allusions on the occasion of the Ganesh festival. It was
declared that a religious uprising should be made as the first step towards the overthrow of the
alien power. Tilak and his associates made the Ganesh into a national movement for enhancing
the intellectual and cultural movement of the people. This festival soon brought the masses and
the various classes together on a common platform and by ‘its lavish, organized and universal
1
Inamdar, 1986, 116.
Chaudhry, 1978, 28.
3
Ibid., 34.
4
Quoted by: Ibid., 34-35.
5
Ibid., 34.
2
125
celebration became important festival in throughout India. It was also conceived as a protest
against the anti-Hindu activities of some Muslims as the partial attitude adopted towards them by
the government. It quickly led to social consolidation and political awakening.’1
Through Shivaji festival, also, Tilak's new nationalism was announced and it shows
contribution of Tilak to the development of Indian Nationalism. And the All India Celebration of
Shivaji Day was runned. By Shivaji, Tilak and his associates wanted to show that India and
Hinduism are organically related as body and soul. The Shivaji festival that started from
Maharashtra soon became a symbol of national solidarity throughout India.2
c) Bipin Chandra Pal
Bipin Chandra Pal (1858-1932) another exponent of the philosophy of militant nationalism in
Bengal, believed that the separation of the secular and the spiritual is alien to Hinduism which
regards politics as a part of the science of salvation. In his opinion:
This new National Movement in India is essentially a spiritual movement. To regard it as either a mere
economic or political movement is to misunderstand it altogether. The philosophy that stands behind it is the
philosophy of the Absolute, the philosophy of Brahman as applied to the interpretation of man's social and civic life.
It looks upon man as the spirit of God incarnated and views social and civic institutions as instruments and vehicles
for the progressive revelation and realization of God in and through man.3
He, indeed, was a theorist of the new vision of India and an awakener of popular support for
the nationalism. Before him, the Indian National Congress never had the religious inspiration
that be imparted to it. In his words, "it drove the new ideals deep down into the very heart and
soul of the land and introduced a new sacrament of nationality and patriotism among the
people.”4 About the concept of ‘mother India’, he explained:
The so-called idolatry of Hinduism is also passing through a mighty transfiguration. The process started really
with Bankim Chandra who interpreted the most popular of the Hindu goddesses as symbolic of the different stages
of national evolution.... This interpretation of the old images of gods and goddesses has imparted a new meaning to
the current ceremonialism of the country, and multitudes while worshipping either Jagatdhatri or Kali or Durga,
accost them with devotion and enthusiasm with the inspiring cry Bande Matram. . . . This wonderful transfiguration
of the old gods and goddesses is carrying the message of new nationalism to women and the masses of the country.5
1
Chaudhry, 1978, 34.
Ibid., 36.
3
Quoted by: Ibid., 45.
4
Quoted by: Chaudhry, 1978, 45.
5
Ibid., 46.
2
126
Hence, the extremists made definite political use of religion. Hinduism occupied a central
place in their scheme. Hindu symbols were invoked to induct people into the movement. They
used Religious festivals for political propaganda and made Religious appeals to arouse antiBritish feeling. They believed in the integrative Potentiality of Hinduism and they desired that
Hinduism should provide an operative basis for political nationality.1 They sought to implement
their objectives by organizing national festivals in honor of Hindu gods and goddesses and other
heroes of Indian history to the growth of a national spirit in India.2 It should be noted that since
their political doctrine was expressed in a predominantly Hindu idiom, it had some effect on the
religious minority groups, particularly the Muslims, and it acted as one of the effective factors in
the birth of Muslim communalism.3
3)
Revolutionary Activities
Another group that used religion in their activities was those leaders who launched violence and
some attacks on the British. They had secret organizations that sacrificed their lives for the
freedom of their country. Such daring spirits could not be controlled by repressive governmental
action. The violent group continued to thrive as powerfully as it was sought to be suppressed and
this life-and-death struggle between British imperialism and Indian nationalism continued to be
fought from both the sides with all the resources available to them until India's freedom in 1947.4
Their resistance of the foreign Power was overtly political but as Shakir has told, ‘it had its
roots in the clash of an alien religion and culture with their own. These movements may be
characterized as "political revolution" under the garb of religion. One may refer to the
movements of the Sanyasis, the Wahabis, the Muslim Fakirs, the Faraidis, the Pagal Panthis of
Mymonsingh, the Naikdas, the Kukas, Birsa Bhagwan etc.’5 Most of the revolutionary activities
were inspired by ‘religion and its sacred texts such as the Gita, the Upanishads and the speeches
and the writings of the Vedantist leaders like Swami Vivekanand.’6 Indeed, according to Sen and
Wagner ‘The Bhagvad Gita shows that the space for violence is not new in India. In ancient
1
Shakir, 1986a, 137.
Chaudhry, 1978, 27.
3
Shakir, 1986a, 137.
4
Chaudhry, 1978, 124.
5
Shakir, 1986b, 136.
6
Chaudhry, 1978, 124.
2
127
India, violence, if justifiable, was regard as a religious duty (dharma) and war was often
sanctioned if it was used to correct the dharmic (religious) balance.’1 Following some of the
important leaders of this group and their use of religion are explained:
a) Aurobindo Ghose
Aurobindo Ghose (1872-1950) gave Hindu nationalism a new orientation. He ‘drew inspiration
from Vevekananda's theory of India's cultural or religious superiority over the West.’2 Aurobindo
agreed with Vivekananda that spirituality constituted the bedrock of Indian culture. He did not
accept the separation between politics and spirituality. He pointed out: 'It cannot be for a moment
contended that we can again be spiritually great without being politically dominant . . . . No
human scheme of spiritual amelioration can be effective without the liberal and public spirited
activity as a free citizen.’3
In his booklet ‘Bhawani Mandir', he ‘sought to concretise his concept of spiritual
nationalism, of India as a Divine Mother in the form of Bhawani, Kali or Durga and prescribe
ways and means to serve and worship her.’4 The Sedition Committee Report referred to this
booklet as ‘a remarkable instance of the perversion of religious ideals to political purposes’ and
expressed the view that ‘it really contains the germs of the Hindu revolutionary movement in
Bengal.’5 The Aurobindo’s Bhawani Mandir scheme in 1905 purposed building a temple in a
secret place among the hills consecrated to Goddess Bhawani symbolizing Mother India. This
temple would be the home of a new order of young ascetics, consecrated body and soul to the
liberation of the mother from the foreign yoke and ready at any time to spear-head a national
spiritual regeneration and the armed struggle for independence.6
For Aurobindo Ghose India was a spiritual entity as well as a geographic entity that could
lead humanity to spiritual perfection. For him, India during the British government was
1
Sen and Wagner, 2009.
Prabha Dixit, “The Ideology of Hindu Nationalism,” In Political Thought in Modern India, eds. Thomas Pantham
& Kenneth L Deutsch (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1986), 123.
2
3
Ibid.
Quoted by: Chaudhry, 1978, 133.
5
Ibid.
6
Chaudhry, 1978, 133.
4
128
enchained and therefore nationalism was a moral endeavor.1 He propounded his theory of
nationalism in these words: "Nationalism is not a mere political program, Nationalism is a
religion that has come from God. Nationalism is a creed in which you shall have to live.
Nationalism is not going to be crushed. Nationalism is immortal: Nationalism cannot die.”2 With
Aurobindo, therefore, Nationalism became the eminent passion of his soul, the theosophical
yearning to realize himself in his God, in his country. Elaborating this theme further he observed,
"I say no longer that Nationalism is a creed, a religion, a faith; I say that it is the Sanatan Dharma
which for us is Nationalism. This Hindu Nation was born with the Sanatan Dharrna; with it, it
moves and with it, it grows... And if the Sanatan Dharma is capable of perishing, with the
Sanatan Dharma it would perish.”3 He has been remembered as ‘the principal architect of the
theory of spiritual nationalism which conceived of India as a mother goddess and treated politics
not as a pastime but as a religion.’4
Aurobindo tried to transform the national movement from a confined intellectual pastime of
the English educated intelligentsia into a wide mass movement. As most of the masses were the
Hindus and as religious stimulations in Hindu society were the main sources of its actions, he
addressed his appeal primarily to the Hindus.5 So, he merged religion with politics and he used
religion as the instrument of mass mobilization. But, indeed, it was not due only to his spiritual
tendencies or the supposed, ingrained religious sentiments of the Indian masses. ‘Stress on the
religious bond had also the effect of blinding the masses to the social and economic gap that
separated them from the bhadralok and eliciting their full support for a movement that was
launched largely to protect the interests of middle class Hindus.’6
He encouraged the Indians to devote themselves to religion and said, "Awake, O Indians,
take to Dharma, place the image of the mother on the throne of your heart, take to the best path
of deliverance...." He justified terrorism on the ground that "evil cannot perish without
destruction of much that lives by the evil.”7 The Bhawani Mandir scheme aimed at an armed
1
Kenneth L. Deutsch, “Sri Aurobindo and the Search for Political and Spiritual Perfection,” in Political Thought in
Modern India, eds. Thomas Pantham & Kenneth L Deutsch (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1986), 198.
2
Chaudhry, 1978, 50.
Quoted by: Ibid.
4
Ibid., 132.
5
Ibid., 138.
6
Dixit, 1986, 124.
7
Chaudhry, 1978, 131 & 135.
3
129
revolution and a coup through disciplined preparation after about 30 years and by tampering with
the loyalty of the Indian army. For somebody, ‘the whole revolutionary movement in India was
thought out by the author of the pamphlet of Bhawani Mandir, which was carefully hidden under
a religious veil in Bande Mataram was shown by the Jugantar articles in its nakedness. By
distributing a few hundred copies of the pamphlet at that time the fright created in official
circles.’1
In Aurobindo’s opinion, self-government or Swarajya “is the fulfillment of the ancient life of
India under modern conditions, the return of the Satyayuga of national greatness, the resumption
by her of her great role of teacher and guide, self liberation of the people for the final fulfillment
of the Vedantic ideal in politics, this is the true Swarajya for India.” In the Bande Mataram also
the same ideal was upheld in these words, "We recognize no political object of worship except
the divinity in our motherland, no present object of political endeavor except liberty, and no
method of actions as politically good or evil except as it truly helps or hinders our progress
towards national emancipation.” He had said the first and the greatest among the means of
winning Swarajya is “faith in God. For, God commands and inspires us to conquer our freedom.
Tuka Ram and Ram Dass spread the gospel of freedom, and Shivaji conquered it. God's will was
working through the youth of the country.”2
b) V. D. Savarkar
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883-1966) was another leader of the revolutionary and terrorist
movement in Indian history.3 He was the framer of the Hindu Mahasabha ideology and also its
guiding spirit. Savarkar began by collaborating with Tilak in a 1905 boycott campaign before he
moved on to lead a seemingly more radical group in London (1906-10) that succeeded in
assassinating a British official. Finally in the mid- 1920s, Savarkar took up the leadership of the
Hindu Mahasabha, a reactionary high-caste political party that created the RSS. ‘The thread
connecting Savarkar's days of “revolutionary terrorism" to his days as the prime ideologue of
Hindutva was his reliance on the actions of an elite and a corresponding mistrust of mass action
from below.’4
1
Chaudhry, 1978, 135.
All quoted by: Ibid., 137.
3
Ibid., 139.
4
Chakraborty, 2013, 145.
2
130
He wrote More than a dozen books. Out of these publications his 'Hindutva', embodying the
fundamentals of Hindu nationalism and Hindu state became ‘the Bible of a great movement’ and
gave to the Hindu Mahasabha a platform, a slogan, a Bible and a Banner. Similarly, in his
'Hindu-Pad-Padshahi' Savarkar says that Shivaji's movement of Hindavi Swarajya or Baji Rao's
Hindu-pad-padshahi was "essentially a Hindu Movement in the defense of Hindu Dharma for the
overthrow of the alien Muhammadan domination, for the establishment of an independent
powerful Empire.”1
According to Dixit, Savarkar formulated an ideology to ‘destroy the claims of national parity
made by the Muslims, neutralize the territorial concept of nationhood propagated by the
Congress, blunt the edge of the demands made by the Depressed Classes, and prevent further
atomization of the Hindu community.’ He synthesized the Congress’ territorial concept of
nationalism with the cultural concept of nationalism based on Hinduism. This synthesis was
necessary for political action. In his opinion, indeed, the Hindu nationalists could not hope to
realize their objectives without this synthesis. 2
So, the ideology of Hindu Sangathan and Hindu nationalism has often been called
‘Savarkarism.’ In 1925 he wrote, "I declare that the future of the Hindu race, of Hindustan...rests
on these four pillars—Hindu Sangathan, Hindu Raj, Shudhi of Muslims and Conquest and
Shudhi of Afghanistan.”3 And after his release from jail he defined his mission as absolute
independence of Hindustan, its achievement by any means and the regeneration of the Hindus.
His motto throughout was ‘to Hinduise all politics and militarise Hindudom.’ To regenerate the
Hindu society he opposed untouchability, fought for temple entry, popularized inter caste
dinners, advocated `Shudhi', favored inter-caste marriages and ridiculed the restrictions on
vocations and sea voyages.4
Hindu nation in Savarkar’s opinion is not 'a treaty nation'. He elaborated this concept in these
words, "Let Hinduism concern itself with the salvation of life after death, the concept of God and
the universe. Let individuals be free to form opinions about the trio... But so far as the
materialistic and secular aspect is concerned, the Hindus are a nation bound by a common
1
Quoted by: Chakraborty, 2013, 140.
Dixit, 1986, 131.
3
Quoted by: Chaudhry, 1978, 140.
4
Ibid., 141.
2
131
culture, a common history, a common language, a common country and a common religion.”1 He
has defined the three bonds of Hindutva as "land-race-culture". According to him, a Hindu is one
who feels dependency to the geographical region from the Sindhu river to the Brahmputra and
from the Himalayas to the Cape Comorin, who inherits the blood of the race that its source e
traced to the Himalayan heights of the ‘Vedic Saptsindhu’ and, who feels honor in the Hindu
culture and civilization including common historical memories, common artistic, literary and
juristic creations and common rituals or festivals or other media of collective expression. There
could be no conflict between Hindutva and nationalism for “a Hindu patriot worth the name can't
but be an Indian patriot as well.”2 To such thoughts, Savarkar as the president of the Hindu
Mahasabha did not accept the absolute Non-Violence of the Congress and supported those
heroes who adopted violence for the vindication of justice. For justify, he mentioned a divine age
that the kingdom of God to become a concrete reality. In this age, violence must be considered as
a hideous crime and a grave sin. But, in his words,
So long as that divine age has not arrived, so long as the highly auspicious end remains only in the lives of
saintly poets and in the prophecies of the divinely inspired and so long as... the human mind has to be busy
eradicating sinful and aggressive tendencies, so long, rebellion, bloodshed and revenge cannot be purely sinful...
Therefore, the sword of Brutus is holy. Therefore, the Baghnakh of Shivaji is sacred. Therefore, the bloodshed in the
revolutions of Italy is of fair fame. Therefore, the beheading of Charles I is a just deed. Therefore, the arrow of
William Tell is divine. And the sin of brutality falls heavily on the heads of those who committed the provoking
injustice.3
Hence, Savarkar, although declared himself as an atheist, used religion as one aspect of
Hindu identity and a source for it so that the first criterion of the Hindu nation, for him, was the
sacred territory of India (Aryavarta) as described in the Vedas, the oldest scriptures of Hinduism.
For Savarkar the Hindus are the descendants of 'Vedic fathers' who occupied this geographical
area since antiquity. Apart from religion, land and race, he mentioned Sanskrit and Hindi
languages. So, he finally established an equation of Hindutva as: ‘Hindu, Hindi, Hindustan.’
‘Hindu nationalism appears for the first time as resulting from the superimposition of a religion,
a culture, a language, and a sacred territory.’4
1
Chaudhry, 1978, 41.
Ibid., 142.
3
Quoted by: Ibid.
4
Christophe Jaffrelot, Hindu Nationalism, A Reader (New Delhi: Permanent Black, 2007a), 14-5.
2
132
c) Some Examples of Terrorist Activities
The terrorist leaders, as mentioned, usually worked through the secret organizations of their own
creation. The activities of these organizations were inspired by Hinduism. Chaudhry mentions
some of them and their activities in various places in or out of India. Inside India, for example,
there were two terrorist secret societies formed by Raj Narain Bose and B.C. Pal in Maharashtra
in seventh decade of the 19th century, two secret societies under the same name, Anushilan
Samiti, in Bengal in the beginning of the 20th century, the Revolutionary activity of Arya Samaj
in Punjab and so on. For example, Revolutionary activity flared up in the Punjab, in 1909, when
Ajit Singh, one of the Arya Samaj’s leadrs, distributed seditious literature and Har Dayal took
classes in Lahore to destroy the British Government in India by a general boycott combined with
passive resistance of every kind. A bomb meant for some Europeans also exploded on a road in
the Lawrence Gardens, Lahore on May 17, 1913 killing an Indian orderly.1
Apart from above cases in India, there were some terrorist activities out of India in England.
For instance, Madan Lal Dhingra (1883–1909) was an Indian revolutionary freedom
fighter. While studying in England, he assassinated Sir William Hutt Curzon Wyllie, a British
official, hailed as one of the first acts of revolution in the Indian independence movement in the
20th century. Before his execution in 1909, he read out a statement, which among other reasons
in justification of his deed, contained the following words:
As a Hindu, I feel that wrong done to my country is an insult to God. Her cause is the cause of Sri Ram. Her
service is the service of Sri Krishna. Poor in wealth and intellect a son like myself has nothing else to offer to the
mother, but his own blood and so I have sacrificed the same on her altar. The only lesson required in India at present
is to learn how to die and the only way to teach it is by dying ourselves. Therefore I die and glory in my martyrdom.
My only prayer to God is that I may be reborn of the same mother and may re-die in the same sacred cause till the
cause is successful and she stands free for the good of humanity and to the glory of God.2
In relation to this activity, V.D. Savarkar in his pamphlet entitled `Bande Mataram' paid rich
tribute to the sacrifice and courage of Dhingra and said, "Young India has once more shown her
hand and the world is lost in wonder and admiration. The scene of action is transferred from
Bengal to England. Once more the heroism of young India has struck terror into the heart of
Britain.”3
1
Chaudhry, 1978, 108-16.
Ibid., 147.
3
Quoted by: Ibid.
2
133
In effect, as Chaudhry mentions, almost ‘all of the terrorists and the revolutionaries were
inspired by the religious ideology of Hinduism.’1 Although, by far, the militant nationalism
failed to achieve important success in India and they could not liberate the country from foreign
domination. Besides, effective Hindu-based nationalism in some mobilizations alienated
ordinary Muslims and left them out of the movement. It provided an opening for Muslims’
reactionary to defend their interests and to forge an alliance with the Raj such as their agreements
with Lord Minto, viceroy of India, in 1906, as already mentioned.2
This kind of communalism, which had targeted a rival religious group rather than the British
as the main enemy, brought about a split in the older generation of Hindu nationalists. Someone
such as Tilak, cast their lot with Gandhi, favored broad popular struggle against the British and
agitated on the basis of inter-religious unity. But others, as Savarkar, who had been yesterday's
“revolutionaries" became the most vociferous communalists.3 Despite this, in the next stages,
these shortages of nationalist movement, by far, at least against the British was solved. Unlike
the Congress Extremists, Gandhi was a strong advocate of interreligious unity and avoided
contrast with Muslim or other minorities, and also any violence. He had the skills necessary to
sustaining mass politics.
C) Gandhi’s Leadership: Religion, Symbolism and Effect on his charisma
In the previous chapter, Gandhi’s view on religion and secularism and the effect of religion and
use of it in his politics were explained. Here his symbolism and charisma are explained to show,
how he used religion in the nationalist movement.
1- Gandhi’s Symbolism
In pre-independence India, Gandhi’s sharp understanding of the Indian psyche helped him
to make a powerful symbolic representation associated with non-violence, as a
sociopolitical movement. 4 Gandhi gradually symbolized prophetic leadership. His simple
dress, his vegetarianism, the staff in his hand and the seating posture that he took up, like
1
Chaudhry, 1978, 152.
Chakraborty, 2013, 132.
3
Ibid., 144.
4
Sen and Wagner, 2009.
2
134
Buddha, at the time of making speeches, served to turn conservative religious opinion in his
favor.1 His admirers, sometimes, compared him to Christ and Krishna and would never see him
as famous politician like Disraeli or Bismarck.2
Gandhi imparted a powerful symbolism and great depth and diffusion to the nationalist
movement. As he has been addressed by his followers as the ‘Mahatma’ meaning ‘a great soul’,
he provided both a concentration of charisma and its dispersal by resorting to powerful symbols
of identity that forced all the sections of the Congress rank and file to fall in line. Kothari
mentions three ways to do this by Gandhi. First, he developed ‘a model of "exemplary" life by
making his own life a museum of national learning and a pacesetter. The "demonstration effect"
that resulted was powerful.’ Second, he converted large and unresolved issues of Indian society
into charismatic symbols: he gave to the vast masses of "untouchables" the name of "Harijans.”3
He said ‘I liked the name 'Harijan' immensely. 'Harijan' means a devotee of God, beloved of
God.’4 Third, he launched a nation-wide movement for their improvement as part of the
Congress program; ‘he developed a massive program for the propagation of Hindustani (a
combination of Hindi and Urdu) as a language of national unity. He turned the symbolism of
Hindu-Muslim unity into a general platform of national cohesion.’5
Besides, Mahatma Gandhi used the concept of ‘Rama-raj’ (the rule of Rama) interchangeably
with the term for “self-rule” or independence (swaraj). In his view, “Ramaraj was not only the
political Home Rule but also dharmaraj… which was something higher than ordinary political
emancipation” that it does not mean Hindu kingship: “Ramraj means rule of the people. A person
like Ram would never wish to rule.”6 He emancipated the notion of “the rule of Rama” from its
“royal” aspects and relates it to a “higher” utopian goal, namely the transformation of society by
religious reform. This rule for him is a Hindu public of voters.7
He, also, used the full symbolism of individual "prayer" as a public institution of the nation,
held every evening wherever he was, during which his solutions to the problems of politics were
highlighted and publicized. Daily press considered the prayer meeting more than most other
1
Varma, 1972, 17.
Ibid., 15.
3
Kothari, 1970, 52.
4
Gandhi, 2008, 356.
5
Kothari, 1970, 53.
6
Van Der Veer, 2006, 258.
7
Ibid.
2
135
news items. Gandhi characterized his struggle against the British as "Experiments in the
realization of truth.”1
Gandhi’s appeal to symbols arousing the collective imagination surprised British
imperialists. Gandhi represented daily objects and insignificant events, and endowed them with
meaning. These symbols ultimately condensed into unusual forms of protests and gained mass
support then became socially accepted. ‘Gandhi’s ways were not Brahminic, but struck a chord
within the ordinary person and were immediately accepted by the masses since they were tuned
to the ‘philosophia plebia’.’2
2- Role of Religion in Gandhi’s Charismatic Influence and Mobilization
Most of the researchers believe in Gandhi’s charisma. In Brass’s opinion, Gandhi was a leader
with charismatic influence at the mass level and among the local leaders.3 Bligh & Robinson in
examining how Gandhi's charismatic influence was so effectively transmitted to his followers,
reached this result that ‘Gandhi's public speeches across his lifetime emphasized the intolerable
nature of British rule in India and appealed to shared religious and patriotic values in
communicating the importance of his vision.’4
Gandhi was clearly aware that contemporary Indian society has internally been divided into
castes and religious communities. So, effective mobilization of the heterogeneous Hindu society
required the use of transcendent Hindu symbols to emphasize Hindu unity, while at the same
time making special appeals for Hindu-Muslim unity.5 Gandhi was able to acquire an amazing
hold over Indian public opinion. The pettiest details about his life, movements and actions were
flashed in the press. A vast section of the Indian people idolized him and ‘it will not be an
exaggeration to say that in a sense he was the greatest spokesman of nationalist Indian public
opinion for over a quarter of a century.’6 Concerning Gandhi’s charismatic, Varma mentions
that:
1
Van Der Veer, 2006, 53.
Sen and Wagner, 2009.
3
Brass, 1994, 25.
4
Michelle C. Bligh and Jill L. Robinson, “Was Gandhi “charismatic”? Exploring the Rhetorical Leadership of
Mahatma Gandhi.” Elsevier: The Leadership Quarterly, 21 (2010).
2
5
6
Brass, 1994, 23.
Varma, 1972, 14.
136
As a leader, Gandhi furnished an example of what Max Weber would call "charismatic" authority. His power
was not due to his being a representative of the ecclesiastical and traditional forces of Hindu society. Neither were
his power and influence based on the assumption and possession of some high and dignified office. He was not a
czar or imperator or a leader of "machine politics" in the American sense. He, on the other hand, built the
foundations of his leadership through great suffering. His power and authority were really "charismatic" because
they were based upon his own moral and spiritual discipline. He was derided, ridiculed, and once even assaulted by
his own countrymen but his mighty spirit rose victorious. His was the power not of the body and the material forces
but of the spirit. He rose to eminence by dint of tenacious loyalty to spiritual principles and self-confidence and his
leadership was attained through heroic sufferings in the path of what he regarded as the divine way or the Marga of
Hari. His personality showed the strength of individual purification and he claimed to follow the dictates of the inner
conscience which indicates the intimations of the supreme spirit. Hence, his charisma expressed itself in the transforming power of his distinctive spiritually-oriented character. Several interviewers have testified to the magnetic
element in his character which evoked loyalty. The almost natural acceptance of his leadership by millions and
millions of people was made possible only because of charismatic authority.1
Bligh & Robinson by examining 16 speeches from Gandhi dating from 1914 through 1948
concluded that ‘while Gandhi does not seem to fit the prototype for charismatic magnetism from
a neocharismatic tradition, he more closely matches the criteria for charismatic leadership in the
Weberian tradition.’2 Despite widespread illiteracy and the lack of mass communication media,
Gandhi effectively reached a wide audience. The content of his messages was an important
component of his leadership impact. One of the important parts of this content was religious
including appealing to broader values and moral justification, universal virtues such as truth,
justice, and equality. According to them, leader's similarity to and support for followers’ worth
was an important factor in his charismatic. ‘Leaders who emphasize their commonalities with
their followers are more effective at communicating the importance of their cause and are more
likely to be perceived as charismatic.’3 In this regard, religion and cultural traditions helped
Gandhi.
They mention that Gandhi's use of self-referential language (I and myself) more than
collective terms (us, we) may in part be reflective of his unique cultural and religious
perspective. In addition, India's roots in the Hindu religion place a strong emphasis on individual
rather than collective paths to enlightenment. Gandhi believed that spiritual quests take a variety
of forms, and therefore differ among individuals. ‘His speeches highlight his individual quest for
“truth” as an illustrative example, rather than emphasizing a common or collective path for his
1
Varma, 1972, 15-6.
Bligh and Robinson, 2010.
3
Ibid.
2
137
constituents to follow.’1 In Gandhi's words, “I have known only one way of carrying on
missionary work, by personal example.”2
He affected his followers by strong religious and moral stance in his activities. In Varma’s
opinion, there were two roots of Gandhi's leadership. ‘His elevated character as a saint, prophet
or Mahatma was one. Another was his selfless dedication to the cause of the special uplift and
political emancipation of the Indian masses. His leadership was the consequence of his
prolonged dedication to the cause of the people. His authority over Indians had been acquired by
long years of patient and selfless service.’3 Because of being a saint so that his message to the
Indian people became so appealing and simultaneously utilizing the techniques of political and
prophetic leaders, Gandhi's leadership was unique. He always remained the simple, lovable,
reasonable and sympathetic soul. His influence among the Indian masses made him to appear as
a political leader. A large section of the traditional and religious Indian public almost worshiped
him. ‘The masses considered him a man of God and hence were responsive to the reception of
his commands.’4
Indeed, a big part of Gandhi’s influence was because of his inner depth. Gandhi preached and
practiced truth and Ahimsa. So, his greatness was related to the depths of the human soul. He
regarded the old Indian values of spirituality, morality, austerity, devout saintliness and reminded
the Indian people of the old sages and moral prophets. He ‘was considered as a link in the
traditions of Vashishtha, Buddha, Mahavira and Tulsidasa.’5 Gopal Krishna Gokhale said about
him:
In all my life, I have known only two men who have affected me spiritually in the manner that Mr. Gandhi
does—our great patriarch Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji and my late master Mr. Ranade—men before whom not only are
we ashamed of doing anything unworthy, but in whose presence our very minds are afraid of thinking anything that
is unworthy.6
Gandhi's spiritual personality reinforced his leadership. He, as already mentioned, pleaded
for the incorporation of moral and spiritual values in politics. He achieved great eminence by
having made the traditional moral techniques also the efficacious instruments of political action.
1
Bligh and Robinson, 2010.
Quoted by: Ibid.
3
Varma, 1972, 14.
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid., 16.
6
Quoted by: Ibid.
2
138
Thus, he turned fasting, suffering and prayer into potent instruments of mass political action.
According to Varma, ‘His constant references to God and the 'inner voice', his daily prayers and
his solemn vow of Brahmacharya, since 1906, when he was only thirty-six, made him a saint and
the Indian public revered him.’ His fasts in 1924, 1933, and 1943 and at other occasions, touched
deep emotional chords in the public heart, and the reaction of public opinion was almost
immediate and quick in his favor.1
Gandhi's leadership was also based on self-abnegation. Although he has desired to fame and
wealth, any temptations could not seduce him and threat overawe him. In Varma’s words:
He became the centre of homage and reverence as a man of God. His ideal was to become, in the language of
the Gita, a Bhakta or a Trigunatita and to subjugate the passions and prejudices of the lower empirical ego. He,
hence, transformed his social and political actions into the Sadhana for the intuitive oneness with God. Due to the
power of his personal self-abnegation, he was able to evoke, to some extent, the reverence associated with the
Avatara, in the illiterate sections of the Indian society.2
During Gandhi’s mass and great movements, the mass of people who flocked to see and
listen to him when he toured the country and who participated in the movements were moved
more by traditional religious beliefs, including the belief that Gandhi himself was a saint or like a
god on earth who would bring miraculous changes in their present or future situation for wellbeing and happiness, than by the particular political and economic demands made in the
Congress charter of demands.3
So, the mass religious belief and superstition had made some representative rumors about
Mahatma Gandhi. As Hailey noted to a former Indian civil service colleague, “the cow is still the
most important figure in Indian politics!”4 In early 1934, with Nehru imprisoned, a frustrated
Willingdon noted that Gandhi continued to draw crowds, but only “because these stupid people
still look upon him as a holy man.”5 Shahid Amin mentions some of these people’s beliefs in
Gorakhpur between February and May 1921. For example, “Sikander Sahu of Village Mahuawa
said on February 15 that he would believe in Mahatma when the boiling-pan in his karkhana split
in two. The boiling-pan split in two in the middle.” 6
1
Varma, 1972, 16.
Ibid., 17.
3
Brass, 1994, 20.
4
Quoted by: Muldoon, 2008.
5
Ibid.
6
See more examples in Amin, 2009: 74-5.
2
139
In Amin’s words, such crucial phrases suggest that ‘what people thought of the Mahatma
were projections of existing patterns of popular belief about the 'worship of worthies' in rural
North India.’1 He also resulted that:
Gandhi was also fitted into the widespread practice of the taking of a vow (manuati), addressed to a god, a local
godling or a saint, on condition that an affliction be removed or that a wish be fulfilled. The practice of Gandhimanuati, of his vrat and aradhana (fast and worship), and of women begging in his name and making offerings of
cooked food (karabi charabna) are further instances of the transference of existing worshipful attitudes and rituals
into a new context.2
However, the Mahatma’s faith was one of the reasons for peasant politicization in Gorakhpur
or the riot at Chauri Chaura. In cases such as these, it is not really possible to separate political
ideology from an all-pervasive religiosity.3 Thus, because of that traditional society, Gandhi used
a traditional religious idiom to mobilize his unorganized society to fight colonialism.4 Some of
his sayings, as mentioned, were "Religion must govern all life," "My heart, word and deed are
pledged to the Being called God", "God rules every breath”, "The whole of my life is saturated
with the religious spirit... My politics and all other activities of mine are derived from my
religion.”5
He, also, used the traditional concepts come out from religion for obligations in mobilizing
the business community and their resources for his various programs: ‘along with building
temples in the neighborhood they were asked to contribute to the great temple that was modern
India. Gandhi constantly emphasized the moral aspect of social and political action, thereby
drawing support from the traditional sectors of Indian Society which he penetrated with great
effect.’6
Another example is that Gandhi considered Untouchability to be more a religious than a
social problem.7 So, his support of this movement had the effect of his charismatic. He
interpreted it as equality before God that mattered more than equality between men.8 Gandhi
established an ‘Untouchability Abolition Week’ in September- October 1932, launched a weekly
journal, Harijan, in February 1933 and campaigned on behalf of the Untouchables from
1
Amin, 2009, 75.
Ibid., 76.
3
Ibid., 77-8.
4
Nandy, 2010.
5
Chaudhry, 1978, 234.
6
Kothari, 1970, 54.
7
Jaffrelot, 2003, 15.
8
Ibid., 17.
2
140
November 1933 to July 1934. He also helped the All-India Anti-Untouchability League, which
was headed by a committee of 9 members, 3 of which were untouchables; of whom Ambedkar
was one.1
Hence, Gandhi in tactics or technique in political mobilization regarded religion as an
important part of tradition and culture. It led to his influence as a charismatic leader among the
mass.
D) Islam and Indian Nationalism
As mentioned, not only Hinduism but also other religions played role in Indian Nationalism and
independence movement, although Hinduism played the principal role. Even in Islam there were
some symbols as Khilafat that were used in politics and among Muslim there were some leaders
like Tyabji and Abu Kalam Azad and they used religion in politics and in the line of Indian
Nationalism.
The relation between Muslims and the Congress started in the late 19th century. Some
Muslims like Nawab Mehdi Hussain of Lucknow sought to make common cause with the
Hindus. Others like Mohsinul-Mulk, Secretary of the Aligarh College and his colleagues
cherished the old idea of reviving the Grand Council of chosen leaders to take care of Muslim
interests. Some orthodox Muslims also advocated relationship with the Congress. According to
them, the Muslims were to encounter two kinds of struggle (Jihad); first, in defense of religious
rights and liberty, and second, involving representation to the rulers for the redress of grievances
and the suffering of the subjects. They claimed that the Congress could support Muslims with
regard to the second one. In the next stages, many Muslims participated in the Congress so that
there were 50 Muslim delegates at the Twenty-second session (1906) like Wazir Hasan, M.A.
Jinnah and Abbas Tyabjee.2 The following paragraphs consist of explanation of the Khilafat
Movement and the two renowned Muslim nationalists.
1
2
Jaffrelot, 2003, 25.
Kaura, 1977, 13.
141
1) Khilafat Movement: The Use of an Islamic Symbol against British
Historically, British India was called ‘enemy territory’ (darl-ul-harb) by the Islamic clergies
(Ulema) because of hostility with the British due to religious causes.1 With coming up of the
Khilafat issue, this hostility was enhanced. The Caliphs have been the successor to the prophet
Muhammad and they were as shadow of God. These titles have acted as symbols of Khilafat on
the community of Islam everywhere.2
With the occupation of Istanbul, capital of Khilafat, by British and its Allies during First
World War, Indian Muslim sentiments were acutely hurt over the issue adversely affecting
Ottoman territories, including the holy places and the future of the Caliphate. In this regard,
Smith (1974) mentions that: ‘Muslims in India, thousands of miles from Constantinople, could
be moved so profoundly by the threat to these symbols (i.e., the holy places and the Caliphate)
and mobilized in such large numbers for militant anti-government activity is a dramatic
illustration of the potency of religion in the process of mass politicization.’3 Also, in Minault’s
words:
Indian Muslims had a common denominator, Islam, and with it a set of symbols of solidarity: the community of
believers, the ummah; its symbolic head, the Caliph; its central place of pilgrimage, Mecca; its scripture, the Qur’an;
its sacred law, the shari’at; and its local reference point, the mosque. This common faith and common set of symbols
offered a way to articulate a common identity based on religion, and the means for an astute set of political leaders
to mobilize Indian Muslims as a political constituency.4
Consequently, the Khilafat movement (1918–1924) that it was a pan-Islamic, political protest
campaign launched by Muslims in India against the British government and to protect
the Ottoman Empire during the aftermath of World War I. The Congress and the Muslim League
decided to organize a protest movement based on the Khilafat manifesto. Muslim prominent
clerics had joined the Congress-League movement of Khilafat. The leadership of the Muslim
League devoted its political efforts for the Khilafat movement. The political activism and
mobilization of Indian Muslims started through several processes of communication and under
powerful religious- political leadership like Jinnah.5 Although it was a Muslim religious
1
Mathur, 1994, 19.
Gail Minault, The Khilafat Movement: Religious Symbolism and Political Mobilization in India (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1982), 1.
2
3
Quoted by: Karaman, 2004.
Minault, 1982, 3.
5
Mathur, 1994, 25.
4
142
movement in India, the movement became a part of the wider Indian independence movement.
The movement was a topic in Conference of London in February 1920. The movement collapsed
by abolishing the roles of Sultan and Caliph in Turkey.1 In this regard, Minault has cited:
During the Khilafat Movement, communication of political issues took place mostly at the local level: in the
vernacular press, by oratory on the public platform, in local mosques and bazaars, by means of handbills and
pamphlets, in verse, slogan, and song, by processions and demonstrations, many organized by local associations and
groupings which were not primarily political, but rather were cultural, religious, or personal networks. The Khilafat
leaders toured endlessly, since personal contact between politicians and populace was important, as was the ability
to speak stirringly on any local grievance and to relate it to the national cause.2
This Movement for the first time in modern India led to the Hindus and Muslims unity in a
single mass movement against British government. Given the large-scale Muslim discontent over
the Khilafat question, Gandhi used the opportunity to unite Hindus and Muslims in order to enlist
their support for the freedom movement. The result was that the first major non-cooperation
movement against the British (1920-22) was started. It was for him ‘an opportunity of uniting
Hindus and Musalmans, as would not arise in a hundred years.’3 During Khilafat question, he
also told: "I am assisting and countenancing the union between Hindus and Muslims.”4 Indeed,
he recognized the significance of Hindu-Muslim unity for the struggle of Indian independence.
Gandhi in 1940 to answer Jinnah’s questions on his identity as a Hindu leader, clarified why he
had supported Khilafat movement: ‘My position is and has been clear. I am proud of being a
Hindu, but I have never gone to anybody as a Hindu to secure Hindu-Muslim unity. My
Hinduism demands no pacts. My support of the Khilafat was unconditional.’5
On his advice, the Muslims decided at a meeting held at Delhi on 22 December 1919 to
withhold all cooperation from the government if the British cabinet did not revise the Turkish
Peace Terms. In its annual convention on December 29, 1919 the All India Muslim League also
adopted a resolution favoring the Khilafat agitation and warning the Government that ‘the
Musalmans would be fully justified in carrying on all possible methods of constitutional
agitation open to them, including a boycott of the British army, if it is likely to be used outside
India for imperial and anti-Islamic purposes.’6 The Khilafat Committee on June 9, 1920
enunciated four stages of non-cooperation including; resignation of titles and honorary posts,
1
Chaudhry, 1978, 250.
Minault, 1982, 3.
3
Chaudhry, 1978, 251.
4
Ibid., 252.
5
Gandhi, 2008, 449.
6
Chaudhry, 1978, 251.
2
143
resignation of posts in the civil services, resignation of services in the police and army and
refusal to pay taxes.1
At the Khilafat Conference in July 1920, Gandhi called upon Hindus to help Muslims. When
the Muslim was disillusioned of the negotiations on Turkey, on 1 August 1920, the Khilafat
Committee entrusted Gandhi with the leadership of the non-cooperation movement. He merged it
with national issues like the Punjab wrongs and the achievement of Swaraj. In the All-India
Khilafat Conference on 7 April 1921, a resolution was passed that the Muslims should adhere to
non-cooperation until Swaraj was obtained.2 In July 1921 the All India Khilafat Conference
declared at Karachi, "it is in every way religiously unlawful for a Musalman at the present
moment to continue in the British army and it is the duty of all the Musalmans in general and the
Ulema in particular to see that these religious commandments are brought home to every
Musalman in the Army.”3 At the Conference, Abdul Majid proposed a resolution to secure
Swaraj for India. Gandhi stated that he had joined the Khilafat movement to help the Muslims,
because for him their success meant Swaraj. In the course of his speech Muhammad Ali paid a
tribute to Gandhi, "I declare today that the Indian Army is the army of Mahatma Gandhi; the
Indian Police is the police of Mahatma Gandhi; every man is on the side of Gandhi; nay on the
side of religion and country.”4
So, between 1919 and 1922, there was unity between the Hindus and the Muslims through
the Khilafat-non-cooperation movement, and it was because of the mobilization of the Muslim
masses.5 The Muslims had pursued their objective by compromise with the Congress, while the
main purpose of the latter was gaining their support in the nationalist movement. But with the
suspension of the civil disobedience movement in 1922 and the abolition of the Caliphate in
1924 this unity gradually was decreased and with the collapse of the non-cooperation movement,
communal harmony was over.6 Although, apart from this movement, some Muslim leaders like
Tyabji and Azad was active in the nationalist movement from the beginning.
1
Chaudhry, 1978, 251.
Ibid., 249.
3
Ibid., 251.
4
Kaura, 1977, 22.
5
Shakir, 1986a, 168.
6
Kaura, 1977, 23.
2
144
2) Badruddin Tyabji
Badruddin Tyabji (1844 – 1906) was a Muslim leader who served as the third President of
the Indian National Congress. In the growth of this organization, in the formulation of the
policies of it, in the elucidation of the Congress program, Badruddin's role was profound.1 By
joining the Congress, he persuaded his coreligionists to participate in the nationalist movement.
There were some suspicions in the minds of the Muslims about the Hindus such as being
numerically stronger that might pass a resolution in Congress against Muslim interests. He felt
that Muslims should make a common cause with other Indians on issues that concerned the
whole country. So, in his presidential address, he appealed to the Muslims to trust the Congress:
‘...So far as general political questions are concerned, I, for one am utterly at a loss to understand
why Musalmans should not work shoulder to shoulder with their fellow-countrymen or other
races and creeds for the common benefit of all.’2 He also requested ‘the Standing Congress
Committee to consider a proposition that a rule should be passed to drop any subject or any
resolution in the case of Muslim delegates unanimously objecting to it. This proposition was
duly adopted.’3
3) Abul Kalam Azad
Mohiuddin Ahmad, known as Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (1888 –1958) was one of the main
figures and Muslim politicians that served Indian nationalism.4 After Ansari's death in 1936 he
took an unassailable position among the nationalist Muslims as they were represented in the
Indian National Congress.5 He was one of the Congress Presidents, and as the symbol of those
Muslims who worked for a united India.
He founded his journal the Al-Hilal in 1912 to propagate his nationalistic, anti-imperialistic
stand.6 In Hasan’s words, ‘He spoke in the language of a 'high-souled prophet', appealed to his
1
Moin Shakir, Muslim and Indian National Congress (New Delhi: Ajanta Publications, 1987), 1.
Kaura, 1977, 8.
3
Ibid.
4
Mushirul Hasan, “Secular and Communitarian Representations of Indian Nationalism: Ideology and Praxis of
Azad and Mohamed Ali,” in Islam and Indian Nationalism, Reflections on Abul Kalam Azad, ed. Mushirul Hasan
(New Delhi: Manhar Publishers, 1992), 79.
2
5
Aijaz Ahmad, “Azad’s Careers: Roads Taken and not Taken,” in Islam and Indian Nationalism, Reflections on
Abul Kalam Azad, ed. Mushirul Hasan (New Delhi: Manhar Publishers, 1992), 122.
6
Hasan, 1992, 79.
145
community's religious passions, awakened their dormant spirits by the use of Islamic symbols
and urged the ulama to alter the language and tenor of their discourse.’1 He wanted to lead the
Muslims at the head of a 'party of God' (Hizbullah) which would unite all Indians against the
British.2 Azad conceived for Islam a vital socio-political role that went against the apparently
secularizing tendencies. In April 1913, Azad wrote in Al-Hilal:
Islam does not commend narrow-mindedness and racial and religious prejudice. It does not make the
recognition of merit and virtue, of human benevolence, mercy and love dependent upon and subject to distinctions
of religion and race. It teaches us to respect every man who is good, whatever be his religion, to let ourselves be
drawn towards merits and virtues, whatever the religion or the race of the person who possesses them.... But above
and beyond this law of universal goodwill, and I do not hesitate to own it even in this age of hypothetical
impartiality, is the jehad of helping the cause of justice, worshipping Allah and establishing right-mindedness and
justice. Islam teaches us that the purpose of the creation of man is that he should represent God on earth, keep
burning the torch of truth and light.3
His articles in Al-Hilal and Al-Balagh focused on mobilizing Indian Muslims against
colonial authority.4 Political mobilization was thus conducted in the name of religion in order to
rouse the masses against the colonial power. In his famous advice to the Muslims, Azad told:
'Remember that the struggle for freedom is a patriotic duty for the Hindus. For us, Muslims, it is
a duty enjoined by our religion.’5 He was of the view that pan-Islamism and nationalism were
compatible ideologies. The community's anguish over Khilafat's future involved him and Jinnah
in the anti-colonial struggle and brought them closer to the Congress. He was able to draw upon
the Quran and the Hadith to advocate Hindu-Muslim amity and to strengthen the case for noncooperation against the British. Following closely the views of Mohammad Abduh who had
endorsed inter-religious cooperation in India, Azad had reiterated that Muslims should be up in
front in fighting for freedom.6
After 1920, Azad clearly came into political activities through involving himself with the
concerns of the Jamiat-ul-Ulamai-Hind, the All-India Khilafat Committee, and the Indian
National Congress. Azad's Islamism, as most prominent Muslim spokesman, in the beginning led
him to even superfluity in the name of religion. In 1920 at the culmination of ‘the Khilafat
1
Hasan, 1992, 80.
Ibid.
3
Quoted by: Ibid., 83.
4
Ahmad, 1992, 132.
5
Ali Ashraf, “Appraisal of Azad’s Religio-Political Trajectory,” in Islam and Indian Nationalism, Reflections on
Abul Kalam Azad, ed. Mushirul Hasan (New Delhi: Manhar Publishers, 1992), 118.
2
6
Hasan, 1992, 84.
146
agitation Azad backed by the newly founded Jamiat-ul-Ulema-i-Hind, issued a fatwa declaring
that under the Shariah it was an Islamic obligation for Muslims to quit India.’1 So, ‘he had begun
to move beyond the view that co-operation between Muslims and Hindus was merely a political
necessity, a means for achieving a political end, viz., freedom from foreign rule, which he
believed to be a religious obligation.’2 In his early writings, Azad described the Congress as a
Hindu body.3
Exhorting Muslims to unite with the Hindus for the country's freedom, he preached panIslamism and their religious duty to organize themselves as a separate community. As the
ideologue and advocate of the Khilafat cause, he offered his scheme ‘Imarat’ with an ‘Amir’ or
supreme leader that was political authority and a section of the universal Khilafat of Islam that
Indian Muslim Imarat was allegiance to the Khilafat although maintained simultaneously in India
as a federal system of Hindu-Muslim unity. For Azad, at the same time, the movement of
Khilafat in India was intertwined with the struggle for the country's freedom.4
By abolishing the Khilafat of the Ottoman in Turkey, Azad tried to redirect the energies of
the Khilafat Committees in India into work for education, social reform and the economic
progress of India's Muslims. In the end of 1928, Azad found himself in the opposite camp of
Mohammad Ali. He joined M.A. Ansari, in founding the All-India Nationalist Muslim Party in
July 1929, and was one of the Congress presidents during the civil disobedience movement.5
After 1930s, Azad's politics and ideology was changed. He adopted a fully secular politics and
even secular universalism. Because of this, the mass of his followers turned to Jinnah, who
became the separatist and their supreme leader, the Ouaid-e-Azam.6 Azad continued to represent
Muslims in Congress and became a leader of the national movement as such. In 1940, he
announced that the principle of conservation is necessary for religious and moral values, social
and political processes. He, also, mentioned that Indian Muslims need what everyone else needs:
secular democracy, progressive economy, decentralized administration and a genuinely federalist
constitution.7
1
Jalal, 2009, 188.
Madan, 2011, 161.
3
Ashraf, 1992, 100.
4
Ibid., 100-11.
5
Hasan, 1992, 88 & 90.
6
Ashraf, 1992, 100.
7
Ahmad, 1992, 127-9.
2
147
He published ‘Tarjuman al-Quran’ in 1931, and put forward the view of the transcendental
oneness of all faiths and the theology of multi-religious cooperation. He opposed partition. In his
speeches and writings, he insisted on: communal harmony, religious broad-mindedness and
cultural cosmopolitanism.1 The burden of Azad's social thought in the Tarjuman when shorn of
all theological finesse, was that a civilizational compact of mutuality between Muslims and
Hindus of India, and among the various religious denominations generally, was the paramount
need both of the nation-state and of a religious life lived in political liberty. So, Azad tried to find
a religious way to confirm secularism and unity between two communities in line of Indian
nationalism as he outlined the unity between religions (Wahdat-e-Adyaan). According to Ahmad
there were
Similarities between Gandhi's idea of Ram Rajya and Azad's sense, encapsulated in the twin notions of
rabubiyat and Wahdat-e-Adyaan, of possible compatibility between Islamic humanism and non-sectarian existence,
especially as both espouse an ecumenical reformation in their respective religions so as to make those religions
compatible with modern needs. The objective in both cases is at once the refurbishing of piety as well as the creation
of a harmonious multi-religious polity which is justifiable in the terms of the religion that each espoused; what joins
the two views is the common ground that both wish to occupy, but neither to the exclusion or diminution of the
other. There appears to be, in other words, a kind of ahimsa between Gandhi's ahimsa and Azad's Wahdat-eAdyaan.2
In Azad’s religio-political thought, citing the example of the Prophet Mohammad himself,
who had entered into a covenant with the Jews of Medina, he envisaged a similar ‘single nation’
of Muslims and Hindus in India. He wrote: ‘if I say that the Muslims of India cannot perform
their duty unless they are united with the Hindus, it is in accordance with the tradition of the
prophet.’3 In his address (1940), Azad declared:
I am a Muslim and profoundly conscious of the fact that I have inherited Islam’s glorious traditions of the last
thirteen hundred years. I am not prepared to lose even a small part of the legacy…. I am equally proud of the fact
that I am an Indian, an essential part of the indivisible unity of Indian nationhood, a vital factor in its total make-up
without which this noble edifice will remain incomplete. I can never give up this claim.4
1
Hasan, 1992, 79.
Ahmad, 1992, 132.
3
Madan, 2011, 161.
4
Ibid, 168.
2
148
Sum up
In this chapter, apart from the religious politics of the British governors and using the variety of
religions to maintain especially by policy of ‘divide and rule’, it was also studied how the
nationalist leaders used religion to mobilize the mass against British Empire for gaining
independence. Almost all trends used the religion in the line of their goals. It was shown how
within each community these leaders used the religious symbols, the religion’s power of
solidarity to inter-community integration and consequently achieved coordination and unity
against the same enemy. The facts, also, show the function of religion in helping Gandhi to
emerge as a charismatic national leader and it had important role in victory of freedom
movement. In the next chapter, the other political functions of religion in pre-independence India
are examined.
149