India’s Independence Odyssey: Unveiling Complexity and Vision

 As India commemorated its 76th Independence Day, the nation’s remarkable progress as a rapidly advancing economy took center stage—a significant feat. Amidst rejoicing in these accomplishments and envisioning the times ahead, it’s pertinent to reflect on the recent past, delving into the intricate challenges interwoven within the initial phases of India’s struggle for freedom.

The arrival of British colonizers ushered modernity into India, accompanied by a complex predicament. Embracing modernity seemed synonymous with embracing colonialism for the Indian populace. Simultaneously, shunning modernity would relegate India to a state of premodernity, with implications for its economic and political spheres. This catalysed Indian intellectuals to delve into unconventional options and devise revolutionary remedies, laying the groundwork for advocating independence.

Driven by necessity rather than choice, Indian leaders embarked on a journey into the past to glean insight and inspiration. While treading a similar path of historical exploration, their diverse perspectives and innovative methodologies prevented them from succumbing to orthodoxy and stagnation. In this pursuit, Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay found unmatched significance in the Sankhya school of philosophy. Bal Gangadhar Tilak delved into the Bhagavad Gita to create the pioneering modern work “Gita Rahasya.” Swami Vivekananda upheld Advaita’s compatibility with modern reasoning akin to scientific research; Sri Aurobindo embraced the Upanishads and Advaita; Mahatma Gandhi extolled the Gita and Jainism for their advocacy of nonviolence; and B.R. Ambedkar revered Buddhism, acknowledging its embodiment of parliamentary principles that resonated with modern times.

While modern Indian thinkers converged in their choice to reexamine history, they embraced ample diversity and divergence in their methodologies and outcomes, thus sidestepping complacency. For instance, though a shared “spirit of renunciation or detachment [bairagya]” within Sankhya philosophy underpins the “lack of an activist spirit, so commonly identified with the Indian character...,” Chattopadhyay deduced that this very aspect, along with the associated sense of ‘fatalism,’ contributed to the loss of Hindu freedom. Intriguingly, he regards the period prior to this as positive while discrediting the immediate aftermath of Sankhya. Thus, Chattopadhyay engages with Sankhya not to endorse it but to repudiate detachment and renunciation.

Conversely, Tilak held the Bhagavad Gita in profound regard while simultaneously rejecting the extensive lineage of interpretations surrounding it—spanning the bhasyas of prominent acharyas such as Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Madhavacharya, Vallabhacharya, and others. His intent was to liberate the Gita from the grasp of these commentators, asserting that their bhasyas, influenced by Mimamsa, leaned towards Gunanuvada. Tilak contended that an excessive emphasis on Bhakti had overshadowed karma, contrary to the Gita’s fundamental message of “Energism (Karma Yoga).” He maintained that the original Gita did not advocate the Philosophy of Renunciation (nivrtti), alleging that the marginalisation of karma within the bhasyas had led Indians to disregard the material world, ultimately resulting in the erosion of India’s autonomy.

Additional modern Indian thinkers adhered to a similar pattern of extracting elements from history, adopting those with potential benefits, and discarding those deemed unhelpful. Swami Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo departed from classical philosophy’s disregard for the material realm, rejecting hierarchical structures, passivity, and superstitions within Indian society while underscoring the pressing need to alleviate poverty. Conversely, Gandhi embraced past texts like the Gita but condemned the abhorrent practise of untouchability, disavowing tales like that of a shudra being punished by Ramachandra for seeking Vedic knowledge as an interpolation. He also contested interpretations of the Gita as a proponent of war and violence. Ambedkar criticised Hinduism for perpetuating caste and untouchability, asserting in his essay “Annihilation of Caste” that eradicating Hinduism was a prerequisite for abolishing untouchability.

Despite a shared inclination among nationalist leaders to engage with history, their varied and dynamic approaches prevent them from becoming entrenched in the past. They collectively discarded elements of history deemed accountable for India’s colonisation, a complexity that underscores the nation’s distinctiveness and vulnerabilities in the modern era. Rooted in critical thinking and diverse recollections, this intricate process laid the cornerstone for an autonomous nation. Acknowledging and instilling this enduring value is crucial for comprehending and upholding this foundational essence.

Upon closer examination, a discernible pattern emerges within the works of modern Indian thinkers: an adept comprehension of the intricate and pivotal predicaments orchestrated by the British to exert control over India, chiefly through leveraging modernity as a validation for their dominion; an unwavering commitment to seeking resolutions through innovative avenues, exemplified by revisiting history, to substantiate India’s quest for independence; and a steadfast diligence in discerning undesirable aspects from the past while embracing pragmatic elements, thus shaping a comprehensive framework for their endeavors.

Contemplating our recent history can significantly enhance our grasp of the essence of India’s independence. A self-reliant India can apply this foundational approach to contemplate the 76 years of freedom, evaluating both positive and negative aspects. Such a retrospective analysis can provide deeper insights into charting the course for the forthcoming 25 years, culminating in India’s centenary of independence. Furthermore, this perspective can serve as a safeguard against an uncritical fixation on unity.