Nationalist, not religious, slogan

The hue and cry over the chanting of ‘Bharat Mata ki jai’ is unnecessary. It is a false controversy manufactured by pseudo-seculars who want to give a communal tinge to this patriotic slogan and score political brownie points

The nation has been witnessing a strange debate on the issue of chanting ‘Bharat Mata ki jai’. It all began with a statement by Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh supremo Mohan Bhagwat while participating in a discussion on “value-based and nationalistic education” at the organisation’s annual meeting in Nagaur, Rajasthan. Referring to the controversy over anti-India slogans raised at Jawaharlal Nehru University, he said: “Now the time has come when we have to tell the new generation to chant ‘Bharat Mata ki jai’. It should be real, spontaneous and part of the all-round development of the youth.”

The statement drew an immediate negative response from a Member of Parliament who gave it a religious turn. He was soon joined by many other politicians who accused the RSS of forcing its ideology on the nation. The issue became a political one as well. Not to be left behind former Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah tweeted: “Is Mehbooba Mufti also going to be asked to chant, ‘Bharat Mata ki jai’, as a condition for Government formation in J&K?”, adding another dimension of political one-upmanship to the raging ideological war.

As a patriot and a veteran, this writer is confused. Why is a mountain is being made out of a mole hill? Is ‘Bharat Mata ki jai’ a religious slogan or is it a political slogan? Why should a statement made by the head of a nationalist organisation create such uproar? In any case, it was just Bhagwat thinking aloud. He hadn’t issued a diktat. Does patriotism, as an ideology, belong to a particular social group or political party? Isn’t it a matter of pride for all Indians? To this writer, chanting ‘Bharat Mata ki jai’ is a way of invoking patriotism and nothing else.

The slogan, ‘Bharat Mata ki jai’, owes its origin to the Indian freedom struggle, and predates the RSS. The freedom struggle was neither a religious movement nor a social or cultural movement. It was a nationalist movement in which Indians from all walks of life participated. It was also not a political movement in the sense that no particular political party could take credit for the freedom struggle or now claim to have exclusive rights over the icons of the struggle.

Even the Indian National Congress, which technically was a political party, was an umbrella organisation under whose patronage all Indians who believed in non-violence as a means for attaining independence participated in the freedom struggle. The point to be noted is that non-violence was the common denominator and not a particular political ideology among the leaders or members of the Indian National Congress.

The outfit became a political party of the sort that we understand today only at the time of independence. Those not subscribing to its ideology discarded it and moved to other parties. After the early death of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the Indian National Congress that was at the forefront of the national struggle virtually became Jawaharlal Nehru’s Congress, and then disintegrated after his death. In 1969, there was a vertical split in the party, leading to the formation of Congress (O) and Congress (R). While most of the senior leaders of the freedom struggle vintage remained in Congress (O), those loyal to Nehru’s daughter Indira Gandhi went with Congress (R), which served as the basis of the Congress party as it stands today.

The freedom struggle, therefore, is the legacy of all Indians and not the sole preserve of Congress, as claimed by most of Congress leaders. During the freedom struggle, Bharat Mata became an icon that created nationalist feelings and brought together people of all shades (irrespective of caste or creed). Patriots idealised Bharat Mata as ‘Shakti’, leading to an artistic impression of the Bharat Mata being portrayed as the Hindu goddess Durga, draped in a tricolour sari and carrying the Tiranga. These are all symbols of nationalism, not of a particular religion.

Since we refer to our country of birth as the motherland, the word ‘mata’ was added to Bharat, our nation.  The ‘mata’ reference was meant to imbibe patriotism as well as remind all Indians to defend their country like their own mother. This writer finds nothing offensive in that. Every religion teaches respect for the mother.

In any case, India is not the only nation that uses the term ‘motherland’. The Russians refer to their country as Mother Russia and so do the Sri Lankans and Bangladeshis. Note that the citizens of all these countries practice different religions.

In fact, even Nehru in his classic, Discovery of India, beautifully illustrated the concept of Bharat Mata and the meaning of the ‘Bharat Mata ki jai’ slogan. In reference to a huge crowd that had greeted him with chants of ‘Bharat Mata ki jai’, Nehru wrote: “India was all that they had thought and much more. The mountains, the rivers, the forests and broad fields which gave them food, but what counted ultimately was the people like themselves. Bharat Mata was essentially these millions of people and victory to her meant victory to these people.” In essence, ‘Bharat Mata ki jai’ means the victory of India or the victory of Indians.

Why should anybody object to chanting for the victory of India, a truly nationalist slogan? To those opposing the slogan, this writer would like to ask: When his Sikh friend wishes him Sat Sri Akal and he reciprocates by repeating the same, does he become a lesser person? Similarly, when he says Salam Alaikum to his Muslim colleagues and they respond with a namaskar or ‘Ram Ram’, does it in any way alter their beliefs? In a multi-cultural state, these are symbols of brotherhood, and should remain so.

This writer, thus, fails to understand the hue and cry about chanting ‘Bharat Mata ki jai’ — a symbol of nationalism. Why this unnecessary fuss? His humble request to the pseudo-seculars of this country, whose sole agenda is to regain political space through religious machinations, is to not trivialise the concept of patriotism and demean ‘Bharat Mata ki jai’ as a slogan that has Hindu nationalist roots. Patriotism is love for the nation, and it is not the monopoly of any particular religious group. A quick look at the Indian gallantry award winners list will set to rest all such doubts. The Indian Army, a secular, apolitical and patriotic organisation, patronises the slogan ‘Bharat Mata ki jai’ with pride and élan.

Bharat is the constitutionally recognised name of the nation that was left by the British when they partitioned India on the basis of the two-nation theory. Bharat is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-cultural nation-state. All its citizens have pledged to ensure its territorial integrity and, hence, any attempt to even suggest her dismemberment is an anti-national act and highly condemnable. Such secessionist thoughts need to be nipped in the bud and no leniency should be shown under the garb of freedom of expression.

‘Bharat Mata ki jai’ was a mantra of inspiration during the freedom struggle and should continue to inspire billions of Indians post-independence, especially today when a deliberate effort is being made to de-stabilise Bharat Mata. Stop quarrelling over trivial issues and ponder over what Swami Vivekananda said: “Do you love your country? Then come, let us struggle for higher and better things; look not back, no, not even if you see the dearest and nearest cry. Look not back, but forward!”

(The writer is a retired Army officer, and security & strategic affairs analyst)