‘Nationalism does not allow the Hindu in India to claim primacy’
Historian Romila Thapar on academic freedom, nationalism, sedition, and free speech.
A widely respected public intellectual, Romila Thapar has groomed
generations of students in Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), and
earlier in Delhi University. Frank in her views, she insists that in the
given climate where people’s nationalism is questioned merely on the
basis of a slogan or two, as in the case of JNU, the primary identity of
every “citizen of India, over and above all other identities of
religion, caste, language, race and suchlike,” is that of an Indian.
“Nationalism,” she points out, “does not allow the Hindu in India or the
Muslim in Pakistan to claim primacy and privilege as a citizen on the
basis of being members of a religious majority community.” In favour of
repealing the sedition law, she took a few questions from Ziya Us Salam.
Excerpts:
Sedition is being thrown around with reckless ease and disdain at
students or at anybody who is critical of the government. Are we in
danger of the state riding roughshod over all individual freedom?
Sedition is an extremely serious matter and cannot be bandied about or
treated casually as we have started doing in recent times. Those who
have the right to accuse a citizen of sedition should be first taught what it actually means
and implies, since many people are unaware of its implications or when
it is appropriate. Countries change their borders within a century, as
indeed the borders of British India changed in the twentieth century
with the establishing of three separate nations. Nationalisms are now
said to be of various kinds. Governments therefore have to be meticulous
in its understanding and sensitive to its meaning before accusing a
citizen of sedition. It cannot be used casually in lieu of abuse. In
colonial times, sedition related to statements made to incite violence
against the colonial state. Today, the colonial state does not exist. It
has been replaced by three independent states, so the context of
seditious remarks has to that extent become more complex. The law
regarding sedition has to be repealed.
In the light of the JNU experience, the government probably does not
seem to be well disposed towards freedom of expression, and is happy to
see nationalism being bandied about as the monopoly of a chosen few. How
disconcerting is this for you as an Indian citizen and a vocal
intellectual?
Most people are generally satisfied with leading conventional lives that
do not require unconventional views and activities. Intellectuals and
academics, however, are not only given to making enquiries in the
furthering of knowledge, but this is their expected function. In doing
so, they have to be confident that they will be allowed to think in ways
that may deviate from the conventional, provided of course their
thought and actions are not socially harmful. And what might be socially
harmful is always a matter that has to be teased apart and debated.
Intellectuals are expected to explore ideas and to do so preferably
without fear. But if they have to live in fear, then that fear seeps
into the lives of the people amongst whom they live. A society whose
ambience is suffused with fear ceases to nurture creativity and its life
is reduced to a routine banality.
On a slightly wider canvas, it seems all abodes of free speech are in
danger. The Film and Television Institute of India, Hyderabad Central
University, Aligarh Muslim University, JNU… there seems to be no end to
right-wing parties and their various affiliates hurling accusations to
mar the fair name of an institution. Does it remind you of the
Emergency?
There seems to be a growing attempt to dismantle institutions where creativity in thought is encouraged.
In most cases, new appointments to positions of authority have been
made of people who were chosen because they are not associated with the
kinds of ideas that explore new avenues of thought and work, or that
encourage the questioning of existing ideas, and because they are likely
to carry out instructions from the ministries. So far at least, this
has been the pattern. In one case, an enterprising Director of the National Museum who actually allowed some qualitatively different kinds of exhibitions
to be held was fairly quickly moved to the Ministry of Sports! Attempts
to silence free speech are, of course, always characteristic of
governments that lack confidence and are uncomfortable with an
independent citizenry.
Nationalism is not just limited to flying flags on official buildings
and singing the glories of the nation symbolised as a mother.
Nationalism was a deep commitment to the identity of a people, most of
whom came together to expel the colonial power. There were some who
preferred to give their allegiance to the Islamic state and to the Hindu
Rashtra. Nationalism encapsulated and should continue to encapsulate
the identity of a people living in a territory claiming equal rights of
citizenship. These rights exclude discrimination on any ground, and
include a concern for the well-being of all such people, and where the
primacy of the citizen is the chief concern of the state. The primary
identity is that of being a citizen of India, over and above all other
identities of religion, caste, language, race or suchlike. Nationalism
does not allow the Hindu in India or the Muslim in Pakistan to claim
primacy and privilege as a citizen on the basis of being members of a
religious majority community. Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Dalits and
Adivasis are all equal citizens. All citizens have the right to debate
and discuss their duties towards the state and also the obligations of
the state to ensure that the claims to human rights of all citizens are
met by the state to an equal degree.
ziya.salam@thehindu.co.in