ABSTRACT
The political is constantly reconstituted, translating its characteristics in accordance with the milieu in which it is located. It is both institutional and non-institutional. Therefore what is articulated in the well-entrenched political institutions has its roots invariably in the wider socio-economic processes, very much outside the governmental institutions. This chapter deals with the processes that to a large extent shape, if not determine, the political. Two dimensions are very critical in conceptualizing the political in a socio-politically volatile state: first, the political may be located not only in structured human acts, but also in the historical circumstances fashioning them in a specific way; and second, the process that is crucial in the evolution of the political in a particular way can never be comprehended without taking into account the dialectical interplay of human values and attitudes within a specific historical context. Hence, in any critical study of human behaviour, institutions other than the political remain significant in conceptualizing and also articulating the political. Within this parameter, this chapter responds to three important questions that are relevant in grasping contemporary Indian politics, which provides a unique model that may be meaningful in socio-economic circumstances similar to those of India. First, what is an Indian identity and how is this articulated? Second, is it possible to conceptualize India as a nation given its inherent and historically justified diversity? Third, if India is a conglomeration of nations, what is the thread that links such a vast country, as diverse as Europe? This chapter is also an attempt to comprehend the texture of ‘the Indian identity’ in terms of both its sociological ingredients and its political attributes, which may not always go hand-in-hand with its acceptable definition in a typical liberal democratic design. The 2006 controversy on the national song, Vandemataram, is illustrative here. There is no doubt that this song was appreciated by the freedom fighters for its powerful potential for mobilization, as its stirring words and imagery impelled thousands of Indians to participate in the nationalist struggle despite adverse consequences. But it also provoked controversies even during the nationalist phase because of the predominant religious imagery and ‘anthropomorphic depiction’ of the Indian nation, which left many uneasy with its adoption as a national song. Yet, in contemporary India, Muslims
who were identified as ‘the hated other’ in the song are divided: although there was a strong opposition when it was decided to sing the song on the day of its centenary year (2006) in schools, including madrassas, equally powerful was the voice in support of the decision because it reflected national sentiments and thus fulfilled a historic purpose during the struggle for freedom.
