The Jainas presumed that reality is truly relative. This applies to everything and, according to Jainas, this very characteristics of relativity is also the principle of the universe. This claim precedes any kind of scientific theories. They even believed that Einstein’s relativity is nothing but the reiteration of the syadvada (relativism) of Jainism. So, they are careful enough in establishing a particular independent reality, and hence they consciously add ‘somehow’ before an assertion or a judgment. Thus, for Jainas, ‘somehow, I own this land’.
Now the question is, will this ever dilute the rigidity that is being usually evident as something called ‘possessiveness’? The sense of possessiveness is one ailment among others that can freak out a peaceful society. People will make attempts to reason out the validity of their claims of a thing through other more sublime aspects. But, sometimes, considering the shallow thoughts and its manifestations, we infer that their claims are more or less selfish. This is like poisoning one’s hateful neighbor to death in the name of God. To our astonishment, recent events have also proved that, had the hateful neighbor bribed the avenger, this whole drama of killing, remorse, punishment can be practically avoided. That is why, nationalism or patriotism is not some kind of child’s play where a broken toy is replaced by a new one. Your possessiveness towards a geographical area, of which you named it as the love of your motherland, is often consoled by a glittering promised land, more beautiful and richer than the former.
We must remind ourselves with the infamous two-nation theory of Jinnah that arises out of the nationalism of the time. It is a consequence that emerges out of the confusion between communalism and nationalism. The bitter reality is that we are lending the very event of making a decision to a third party. And the decision is about an internal conflict across two communities whose power structure is reliant upon a third person common to both. If this power gives its consent in reorganizing the chaos into some kind of an immediate peace, then we are always expose to the two-nation theory. The reason is plain and simple, because, some-how we seem to be struggling notionally between communalism and nationalism. The majority had failed to grasp the complexity that exists on the relationship between these different entities; people – region – state – history – future – power. If one tries to show the sense of nationalism through communalism, then one is, eventually, inviting the two-nation theory.
The opinion is that, one must never risk such predicament because we have unfortunately lent the power of making a decision to a third party. Or rather, this very act of indecisiveness is imposed upon us historically. Had we begun our movement and slogan, against the power structure that is responsible for making a conscious move to disintegrate the state, and not against some community, we could be having, at present, a different picture in our hand. The casualties in the American Civil War approximately amounts to 8 to 9 lakhs, which represent two percent of US population of the time. A classic decision was made by the then US President and his team, resulting in a disastrous bloodshed, just for the sake of preserving an aspect of humanity. It could be a glorious exemplification of true nationalism projected by an able leader, which is practically based on ideology in favor of humanity. Lincoln’s war was not against some community or race, but against those who refuse to abide by the rules of abolishing slavery, who further intends to disintegrate America on the grounds of slavery. The wise Lincoln procured both the land and the people through justified desperate measures.
True sense of nationalism requires sound ideology that ultimately favors humanity in the larger context. The sense of possessiveness towards a few acres of land, and the hatred towards some community, is not helping the people neither in achieving peace, nor in fighting a just war. If one argues that the hatred is a product of defiance against the incumbency, or against some kind of presumed status quo, then it all ends up with the sense of possessiveness in general. Again, if one is stuck with the possessiveness and its related sequence of power, then one must also be aware of the relativeness of ownership. For instance, the Rajputs and the Chauhans reign over Delhi before the Sultanates. Then, the Sultanates witness the change of power between five different dynasties until it was captured by the Mughals. Later, it was retrieved by the Marathas, and finally annexed by the British. This is just an unveiling of the necessity of power, its dynamics, and its sinister capability of making people homeless. If necessity arises of a just war, like Lincoln and Gandhi realized, then it must seek its origin in some sublime ideology, for example ‘justice’, that necessarily favors and glorify humanity. Otherwise, like the Jainas has said, the ownership of a particular geographical area is purely relative.
The writer is Assistant Professor, Imphal College
