IT may infuriate a section of our ruling and intellectual elite to be told that the Indian mind has become much poorer today than what it was during the era of the freedom struggle on account of the elite’s lack of familiarity with, if not outright aversion to, Sanskrit. Just as a large section of the Sangh Parivar has a visceral dislike for Urdu, and has thus deprived itself of the richness and unique aroma of this quintessentially Indian language, an equally large section of the aggressive votaries of secularism and social justice have sought to turn Sanskrit, India’s oldest language, into a pariah in its own land. As a result, in our national discourse, especially the one conducted through the English media, we rarely come across ideas rooted in our epics, shastras, subhashits or literary works in Sanskrit. Indeed, it is now politically and intellectually incorrect to exhibit one’s knowledge of, much less profess one’s love for Sanskrit. It is this intellectual rootlessness that is, for example, responsible for the confused, misdirected and often counter-productive debate on secularism translated as ‘‘dharma nirapekshata’’. That dharma is not religion (as the latter is understood in the western and semetic traditions) is something that all great Indian thinkers, from Gandhiji to Tagore to Radhakrishnan, have affirmed. Yet, our elite continue to project secularism as neutrality from dharma. They do not seem to realise that, wittingly or unwittingly, they are contributing to the banishment of righteous conduct and spiritual orientation from politics and public life, with disastrous effects on our society that none but the conceited can deny. Like dharma, there is another seminal Sanskrit term — swadheenata — that is lost in translation. Look at how the two terms ‘‘freedom struggle’’ and ‘‘swadheenata sangram’’, though referring to the same era in the history of India, convey two different meanings. To understand the difference, let us turn to Bipin Chandra Pal, one of the foremost political thinkers of modern India. He wrote, nearly a century ago, that unlike the European conception of freedom, the word swadheenata was not a negative but a positive ideal; it enjoined on Indians more than the task of attaining political independence from alien rule. The opposite of paradheenata (subjection by an external power), he argued, is not anadheenata (non-subjection). ‘‘Swadheenanta (self-subjection) does not mean absence of restraint or regulation or dependence, but self-restraint, self-regulation and self-dependence. Indeed, our understanding of swadheenata means a good deal more than what even the terms self-restraint, self-regulation and self-dependence would convey in English.’’ How? This is where the root Sanskrit word ‘‘swa’’ (self) in India’s social and spiritual philosophy soars to nearly unsurpassable heights. Swa refers to multiple conjoined entities and identities. It is synonymous with the individual self, the family self, the community self, the national self, the self of humankind and ultimately the universal self. ‘‘Swadheenata,’’ Pal writes, ‘‘means, really and truly, subjection to the universal. The complete identification of the individual with the universal, in every conscious relation of his life, is, thus, with us an absolute condition-precedent of the attainment of swadheenata.’’ Therefore, individual, family, community, class, race, ethnicity, and nation can all relate harmoniously with each other by realising their common links to and common obligations towards all of humanity. Yet, each, including humanity itself, must submit itself willingly to the all powerful and all-empowering universal self. (A pertinent thought here: Doesn’t Islam too mean ‘‘submission to God’’? Doesn’t Islam also talk about the sovereignty of Allah being superior to the sovereignty of humanity or its constituent nations? Eminent Pakistani historian Ayesha Jalal’s masterly book Self and Sovereign has many ideas that resonate with those of great modern Indian seers like Bipin Chandra Pal, Tagore and Gandhiji. Of course, there are significant divergences too.) The point here is not merely about how a term suffers ‘‘translation losses’’ while travelLing from Sanskrit to English. Far more serious is how the loss has affected life in India. Even though we gained political independence in 1947, the true meaning of swadheenata — and the self-discipline, self-restraints, duties and responsibilities it entails — is largely lost both on the society in general and, more importantly, on India’s ruling economic, social and political elite. Which is why we see that, in general, our political leaders, bureaucratic bosses, business tycoons and media moguls are not adheen (under control) of any notion of the larger societal or national good. Selfishness has come to rule in every sphere of national life in the absence of an awareness of the true meaning of swa or individual self as an integral part of the national self or the universal self. Sectional identities are being aggressively affirmed disregarding both the national identity and social harmony. Rights are being asserted, and duties forgotten. The rich and the powerful routinely misuse and abuse their freedoms to browbeat the poor and the weak, without realising that they are injuring themselves in the process since their own self is as organically related to the self of those they exploit as the head is to the legs in a human body. In short, the freedom movement may have come to an end in 1947, but the Swadheenata Sangram, in the true and comprehensive sense of the term, must continue. Not against any alien ruler but against our own ignorance about our enlightened self-interest. It means that each one of us should work and live like a swadheen citizen, in the knowledge of our duty towards God, humanity and motherland. Write to sudheenkulkarni@expressindia.com
