Although
it is wise to understand the true meaning of a word, but, to add to the
confusion, existing because of careless use of the word, by interpreting the
word to suit one’s own philosophy is an intellectual crime.
Let us assume that all the three
words referred to in the title of this article convey the same meaning. To
serve the humanity and the cause of humanity is a thoughtful activity which,
indisputably, ensures the humanity sustain itself happily for as long as it is
naturally allowed to. Gandhi, one of the greatest proponents of ‘selfless
service’ who practiced it with the best of his ability, rightly pointed out
that the man has limited ability, certainly not enough to serve the entire
world. Gandhi maintained that the man can, at best, serve his ‘immediate
surroundings’ that he is fairly aware about. He named the ‘immediate
surrounding’ of the man as his nation. Gandhi assigned geographical and
historical reasons for formation of India.
Gandhi disapproved the idea of
people of one nation going to some distant nation even with intentions of doing
good to the people of the distant nation. He thought, it smelt of selfishness
and self-defeating arrogance. Gandhi, like Aachrya Chanakya, considered it right
and righteous to resist any invasion of people of other nations with selfish
motives, though the methods of resistance suggested by the two might have
differed according to time, circumstances and place. They both called the
thought and act of resisting against invasions of the people of another nation
as patriotism.
Therefore, we can say that the
thoughts and acts behind the duty of serving selflessly one’s ‘immediate
surroundings’ (the nation) is nationalism; and the duty of promoting and supporting
whatever is good for the people of one’s nation, and of resisting whatever is
bad for them, is patriotism. But, what if the people of one nation invade
another nation for benefiting the people of their own nation? Obviously, it is
against the universal consciousness of survival of all, it cannot be a duty,
hence it is not patriotism, it is an organized violence. To eradicate the
thought of violence, organized or unorganized is the universal duty of a human
being irrespective of his nationality. Gandhi’s heart did not allow him to
resist any violence through violence. But, ancient Indian philosophy insists
that to resist violence, only those who are truly selfless and dedicated to the
thought of serving all that is living or not living, can thoughtfully act violently,
if absolutely necessary.
The words ‘Nationalism’ and ‘Patriotism’
must negate selfishness and violence. The concept of self must be universalized
to the extent that it remains within the ability of the man. Within that
meaning of self, the two concepts admit the necessity of ‘self-pride’ for cultivating
the will (the inner action) for self-correction. National pride has no
connection with arrogance (the outward reaction). The ‘Rashtreeya-Bhavana’
(राष्ट्रीय भावना) is a philosophical expression of the social
activity of man based on truth, duty and nonviolence. The way the invading
nations use the words ‘Nationalism’ and ‘Patriotism’ is irrelevant in India.
PROMOD KUMAR SHARMA
[The writer of this blog is also the author of “Mahatma A
Scientist of the Intuitively Obvious” and “In Search of Our Wonderful Words”.]
0 comments:
Post a Comment