• Fr Martin Sankoorikal
  Professor, St Thomas Apostolic Seminary, Vadavathoor

Polyphonic Readings of Freedom

Jean-Paul Sartre, a French existentialist, stated, “Man is condemned to be free.” (Sartre, Existentialism is Humanism, 1946). This idea contrasts with Rousseau’s earlier assertion, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” This awareness of freedom prompts Henrik Ibsen’s heroine Nora in A Doll’s House to declare, “I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.” These statements testify that as the world transforms at an accelerating pace, the notion of freedom undergoes continual redefinition and reinterpretation.

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave in The Republic reveals different dimensions of freedom. Those chained in a cave perceive only shadows on the wall, believing them to be reality. When a prisoner is freed and sees the real world outside the cave, he recognizes the truth and attempts to enlighten those still imprisoned. Plato uses this allegory to suggest that truth has the power to liberate. Today, many remain confined in the caves of systemic oppression, while those who should be advocating for their freedom appear either deluded or ineffective.

“To safeguard the secular ethos of India, we need to ensure the freedom to features of each community and promote a culture of contributing to the common national good.”

John Stuart Mill, a proponent of utilitarianism, stated, “My right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” A new form of fascism is emerging in India, encroaching upon individual privacy and autonomy. This totalitarian trend not only dictates personal choices but also seeks to control cultural and religious identities. In recent decades, we have witnessed a shift in Hinduism, from a plurivocal, polyphonic and tolerant ethos to a univocal, monolithic and absolutist one. The all-embracing, porous and hospitable nature of Hinduism is being subverted by a neo-Hindutva agenda, which is widely regarded as an illegitimate politicization of religion. Moreover, the nationalist rhetoric of the saffron brigade propagates the claim that only Hindu ideology is compatible with Indian-ness. As a consequence, members of the brigade demand that minorities pledge allegiance to Hindu religious symbols, presented as national symbols. In this article, I offer a historical and analytical account of political Hindutva and its ambition to transform secular India into a theocratic Hindu nation by use of illegitimate means. Such an approach will reveal the great damage this exclusive, totalitarian and separatist movement has done to the secular ethos of the Indian Republic.

The Wounds of Indian Freedom

The will of Gandhi’s assassin, Nathuram Godse, is noted for several reasons: it instructs that his ashes should not be scattered in the sacred Ganges until India’s cultural, political, and religious values align with those of a Hindu state. This demand highlights a deep desire for a theocratic vision of India, contrasting sharply with Gandhi’s ideals. When religious authority transforms democracy into a theocracy, Gandhi’s cry, “Hey Ram!” resonates once more.

“A new form of fascism is emerging in India, encroaching upon individual privacy and autonomy. This totalitarian trend not only dictates personal choices but also seeks to control cultural and religious identities. In recent decades, we have witnessed a shift in Hinduism, from a plurivocal, polyphonic and tolerant ethos to a univocal, monolithic and absolutist one. The all-embracing, porous and hospitable nature of Hinduism is being subverted by a neo-Hindutva agenda, which is widely regarded as an illegitimate politicization of religion.”

During the framing of India’s Constitution, Jawaharlal Nehru, almost prophetically, remarked: “The possibility of majoritarian communalism being misinterpreted as nationalism and minoritarian communalism as terrorism is high in the Indian context.” This observation is particularly relevant in a political climate dominated by majoritarian nationalism, where the Sangh Parivar is working to undermine Nehruvian secularism by labelling it as Western and anti-Indian. Nehru was a staunch critic of Hindu nationalism, which is communal and theocratic, and he called it the greatest threat to a secular India. His attempts to minimize the role of religion in political life without negating the truths of religion created a secular ethos in independent India. In short Nehruvian secularism became the strongest barrier to the Hindu nationalists’ dream, i.e., the transformation of India into a Hindu Nation. Their protest against Nehru must be understood in this context.

While neighbouring countries have often become symbols of military rule, dictatorship, and anarchy, India’s secular-socialist state has endured thanks to the vision and insight of leaders like Nehru. Yet today, communal forces are denouncing Nehruvian secularism as pseudo-secularism, wielding it as a political weapon. The Sangh Parivar’s narratives are converting myths into historical facts and substituting objective history with communal stories. Efforts within the educational system to reframe history under the guise of cultural nationalism are distorting impartial history into myth.

“In contemporary India, where censorship pervades both social and mainstream media, democracy faces a significant challenge. Writers and thinkers confront existential threats, and only a few dare to stand up for truth and justice. Neo-fascists often cultivate fear within the majority community, fostering hatred and contempt for minorities and using them as political tools. This approach is evident in the contemporary Indian scenario.”

Bertolt Brecht, the German poet and playwright, poignantly illustrates this with a scenario in which a visitor to Hitler’s Germany is asked, “Who is ruling Germany?” The terrified response is, “Fear, fear is in charge here.” In contemporary India, where censorship pervades both social and mainstream media, democracy faces a significant challenge. Writers and thinkers confront existential threats, and only a few dare to stand up for truth and justice. Neo-fascists often cultivate fear within the majority community, fostering hatred and contempt for minorities and using them as political tools. This approach is evident in the contemporary Indian scenario. After visiting the Statue of Liberty in America, Chilean poet Nicanor Parra wrote, “In America, Liberty is a statue.” In an era of rising authoritarianism and institutionalized communalism, a poet might write of the Statue of Unity: “In India, Unity is a statue.”

To safeguard the secular ethos of India, we need to ensure the freedom to preserve distinctive features of each community and promote a culture of contributing to the common national good. In the Indian context, the internal reforms of religion, together with a healthy blend of reason and faith, will prevent the emotional exploitation of religion for political gain. It is in this context that the amendment of the Indian constitution in 1977, to combat obscurantism and religious fundamentalism, becomes relevant. This amendment states the fundamental duty for every citizen “to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of enquiry and reform.” Moreover, as Dhirendra Vajpeyi writes: “God must be liberated in India from the Babri Masjid, Ramjanmabhumi, and the politics of paradise eschewed in favour of a culturally and ethnically plural yet politically united, secular, and modern India.” A deep understanding of the essence of religion and an attitude of considering the other as co-pilgrim in the search for the absolute may be a unifying force in a world torn by suspicion and hatred.