I always loathed this. It was a kind of revulsion I would find myself in - whenever someone would use the phrase “founding fathers” in the context of India & Indian independence from the British in 1947. To call someone as the father of the nation especially for a country like India smacks of arrogance and ignorance at the same time. Come to think of it, it seems like the term is a straight lift from the USA.
In the context of the USA, the term "founding fathers" makes a lot of sense but whereas India's, it comes across as downright nonsensical. Let me lay out the reasons for the same. First and foremost, India's recorded history, even by the account of hostile communist historians is over three to five thousand years old. Although India was declared a republic in 1950, India as a country existed for millennia and was recognized and respected by all the world powers starting from Greeks to Romans to medieval Europeans. India had trade relations with all erstwhile powers of their times - Greece, Rome, Persia, Arab world etc.
Most historians recognize that there are seven founding fathers of the USA : George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, James Monroe and Benjamin Franklin. Each one is an intellectual giant and visionary in his own right. As far as Indian case is considered, we ascribe the "father of the nation" status to 'Mahatma' Gandhi. The only common factor between Indian and American independence is that, the erstwhile colonial masters of both the countries was the same : The British. But the similarity ends there. The course both the countries took post-independence was entirely different from one another.
For the sake of argument, I'll pick up one of the founding fathers and his well known work : John Adams & his definitive work "The Political Writings of John Adams". Watch this video on John Adams' view on finer arts.
I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain.
Now, pick Gandhi and his autobiography "the story of my experiments with truth". Although I reckon, Gandhi is very honest about his personal life and he had too many virtues that he preached and embodied, some of his ideas on economy, modernization, pacifism were totally impractical if not downright ridiculous. But he had such a sway over the masses, he was deified and questioning him or his views was tantamount to sacrilege.
Individuals and nations who would practiced non-violence must be prepared to sacrifice (nations to the last man) their all except honour.
If you compare the philosophy of John Adams with say that of a Gandhi or a Nehru, contrast couldn't be starker. On one side you'd see clarity of thought, clear articulation and vision for future but whereas on the other side all you see is mindless pacifism, emotional claptrap and obstinate linear thinking. No wonder America was destined for early freedom and greatness but whereas India was languishing in eternal tragedies - one after another.
It's not that India lacked vision, or the sense of pragmatism or 'realpolitik'. In my assessment, if India had imbibed political philosophy and realpolitik of Kautilya as described in his seminal work Arthashastra. Although this work is at least close to 3000 years old, it has a clear and definitive views on statecraft, nation-state, finance, military strategy and strategic affairs, to name a few. It is very much contemporary. This is just one of the few prominent examples. There are quite a few alike.
But alas, India and Indians choose to rally behind a few people who supposedly 'got us freedom' and followed their philosophy as Gospel Truth. We forgot the past and to paraphrase Santayana, those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes. Indian growth trajectory would have been quite different if we had better "founding fathers" with real vision and pragmatism.
No comments:
Post a Comment