Any current reference to the ‘idea of India’ seems to resonate with the debate on ‘intolerance’. This is natural, as secularism in its Indian variant of ‘sarva dharma sambhava’ is indeed an integral part of the idea of India. Still, although integral and in fact crucial, it is only a part, not the whole. It is also clear that the forces which attack the secular part of this idea also vehemently contest the very idea itself. The reason is fundamental. The present idea of India, with all its theoretical ambiguities and practical shortcomings, is a democratising and modernising idea. This reflects, for example, in the design of the constitution. Modernity in this context must not be confused with either crass consumerism or with copycat devotion to western societies. The idea of India under threat today is rooted in a vibrant dialogue between modernity as it historically developed in the West and India’s own interrogation of tradition rooted in precolonial movements such as Bhakti.
The Karachi Congress session of 1931, presided over by Sardar Patel, passed a resolution, which can be taken as the first systematic articulation of the idea of India. This resolution laid out the parameters on the basis of which independent India was to be governed such as fundamental rights; universal adult franchise; protection of minorities; state ownership of key industries, mines and minerals; minimum wage and other protections for workers; and free and compulsory primary education.
This was preceded by the Lahore session, where it was stated that poverty and other challenges can be met only, ‘on the basis of the genius, culture and traditions of thought of the Indian people’.
The Karachi Congress saw a culmination of the ongoing democratisation of the political process, which had started with Gandhiji transforming politics into everybody’s concern instead of the professional or revolutionary elite’s vocation. It was also the fructification of Indian soul-searching coming down from the early modern phase of Indian history. Gandhiji’s and others’ dialogue with Bhakti poets of vernacular languages reflect this continuum.
It is crucial to recall, that the Indian freedom struggle, far from being merely a cry for political independence, was a self-consciously moral exercise. That is why, in spite of all their differences of opinion on many issues, the views and agitations of Gandhi, Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose, Sardar Patel, Maulana Azad, Sarojini Naidu, Rajendra Prasad , C Rajagopalachari, BR Ambedkar and Bhagat Singh converged on the core of the idea of India as a secular democracy evolving its own rich cultural legacy into a modern nation.
Those who are today quite eager to appropriate one or the other of these great souls, conveniently obfuscate important events not amenable to their narrow narratives. For example, the provisions for the protection of minority rights were moved by Sardar Patel in the constituent assembly. Bhagat Singh was critical of the Congress leadership for not being sufficiently Left of the Centre in its political programme. Ambedkar was irked that radical steps were not taken to eliminate caste. Whatever the fascination of Netaji Bose with ‘military’ action, he was ‘secular’ to the core. It was Bose in his capacity as Congress president, who appointed a Planning Commission and invited Nehru to chair it. He drafted distinguished persons such as Meghnad Saha and M Visvesvaraya as members of the body. This model is followed even today when the Planning Commission has been rebranded (a chief concern of the present executive) under a peculiar acronym.
In other words, the idea of India as imagined by the leaders of the national movement envisages a welfare state which is to proactively lead India to the goal of a just, inclusive and rational society.