Skip to main content

Moral Nationalism: Tilak, Bankimchandra and Aurobindo Ghosh

At the close of 19th century, tired of negotiating with the British government, a militant nationalism came to the fore. The writings of Tilak, Chattopadhay and Aurobindo Ghosh ignited a new kind of nationalism often called Militant Nationalism. 

Bal Gangadhar Tilak's Gita Rahasya originally written in Marathi in 1915 was a pioneer work which asked for Nishkam Karmayoga (selfless action), rather than Karma Sanyasa (renouncing of actions). Tilak argued that one's salvation depended not merely on devotion and knowledge, but also on action.

Willingness to engage in righteous violence.

Another great work, similar to realist tradition emerged in the writings of Bankimchandra Chattopadhay in 1888. His book Dharmatattva depicted the western influence on Hindu philosophy in 19th century. This seminal text focuses on whether the patriotism or the willingness to fight for one's own country is essential for human race. The answer:

Just as dogs in the rural markets snatch morsels from one another, peoples whether they are civilized or not are despoiling one another's property. A strong people is always ready to fall upon the weaker ones. Hence there can be no self-protection without protecting one's own country. 

However, he doesn't mean a call for arms by his answer. He argued the European patriotism shouldn't be copied.  Because the truest form of patriotism lies in 'love for the entire world'. If ever two societies clashed, then the appropriate way to proceed, was to calculate which outcome would produce the the greatest benefit for all. 

The similar analogy can be made through the writings of Aurbindo Ghosh. Inspired by the Japanese victory over Russia in 1905, he wrote an essay titled "National Development and Foreign Rule". He argued that a nation 

must develop military and political greatness and activity, intellectual and aesthetic greatness and activity, commercial greatness and activity, moral sanity and vigor

for it 

can't sacrifice any of these functions of the organism without making itself unfit for the struggle for life and finally succumbing and perishing under the pressure of more highly organized nations. 

He also defended militant methods through his writings. In Morality of Boycott, he wrote citing Congress members as 'a certain class of minds shrink from aggressiveness as it were a sin. Their cry is to heal hate by love.' The political actions ought to be governed not by the Brahamnical duty of saintly sufferance, but by the morality of Kshatriya, as he argued. 

These arguments might sound dangerous but we must interpret in the context of British subjugation of Indian citizens. The India's ultimate mission to was point humanity toward "human liberty, equality and brotherhood". 



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is Dependency Theory of International Political Economy?

Wikipedia Commons   Like Wallerstein, Dependency Theory emerged in Latin America which argued that world trading system benefited only advanced capitalists' economies. Often the Terms of Trade favored these countries over the least developing countries (LDCs).  Terms of Trade = Export Prices / Import Prices LDC economies depend upon export of raw materials and agricultural commodities. And they import finished products from developed countries.  As the commodity prices rise slowly but manufactured product prices rise sharply, the terms of trade would deteriorate for LDCs unless their exports rise faster than the imports. The global trade is done mostly by corporate subsidiaries thus commodity prices are not exposed to market. These giant corporations often secure the deal with long term agreements, thus even though commodity prices might have rose but they would pay what was agreed in the agreement. They also have sophisticated accounting devices which enable them to avoi...

Indian Foreign Policy Evolution (1857-1947): Universal Brotherhood to Moral Nationalism

George Tanham (1992) famously argued that political elites in India showed "little evidence of having thought coherently or systematically about national strategy." This narrative is build upon the old idea of India under British rule but no doubt; it holds some merit in saying this. Indian foreign policy objectives were never clearly defined. It doesn't make sense advocating 'non-alignment' policy and securing a friendship treaty with one of the powers. Neither it makes sense having a closer ties with the US but expecting Russia to remain friend. India always has this contradictory foreign policy approach since late 19th century. Indian view on world politics still resembles the precedents rooted in the past. If we have a closer look between 1857 to 1947, we might get some clue on why India lacks a cohesive foreign policy outlook. The 19th Century India The Indian view on International Relations was shaped by three underpinning thoughts: 1. Universal Brotherhood ...

Making sense of Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations"

 After 27 years when Samuel P Huntington's article titled "Clash of Civilizations published in the Foreign Affairs magazine, there are people (mostly liberal) who completely refute to acknowledge any cultural clashes, and conservatives who believe in everything that is argued in the article. The truth lies in between, thus I will try to answer objectively in the question-answer format. Q. What is all about Clash of Civilization? A. The crux of Huntington's article is that future conflicts will mostly occur on the line of culture and civilization. According to Huntington, "world-politics is entering a new phase" in which "the fundamental source of conflict will "occur between nations and groups of civilizations".  Q. How many civilizations did Samuel Huntington see in the world? A. Huntington identifies eight major civilizations in the world: 1. Western  2. Confucian 3. Japanese 4. Islamic  5. Hindu 6. Orthodox  7. Latin American 8. African Q. How ...