Were Chandrasekhar Azad and Bhagat Singh any less patriotic than Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru or Vallabhbhai Patel? Their approaches to fighting for the cause of Independence from the British were vastly different, but their objective was obviously similar.
When such plurality in approaches has helped free the nation from the shackles of subjugation, there ought to be no place for a directive from the Centre telling states how they should get their schools to celebrate Independence Day.
The Centre has termed violation of the directive issued by its Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) on Independence Day celebration in schools by the Trinamool Congress government in West Bengal as “anti-national”.
The MHRD circular to state education secretaries had asked every school to arrange a “Sankalp programme” from August 9 to 30 and to organise a ceremony where teachers and students will take a pledge to rid the country of poverty, corruption, terrorism, communalism and casteism by 2022.
However, there was no mention of where from schools will get the funds for such celebrations. The directive also instructed getting the celebrations in schools videographed, which the West Bengal government found impractical.
In fact, the education minister of Bengal Partha Chatterjee has stated that the state was not opposing the Centre’s proposal, but only stating that the state will celebrate the day in its own way, as it had been celebrating it for the past 69 years.
The chief of Bharatiya Janata Party in Bengal, Dilip Ghosh has, in turn said that the state government was behaving “as if it is the last word on everything” and has pointed out that “it seems [the Bengal government had] no understanding on what to oppose and what not”. It may be pointed out that, lately, the Centre too is behaving as if it is the last word on everything, ignoring the fact that India is a federal democracy.
Ghosh’s statement is also equally applicable to his own party and what it is trying to impose on an inherently diverse culture. The uniformity that the government appears intent on achieving cannot be brought about by directives. All of us must accept that the beauty of India lies in our diversities.
A Naga or a Mizo may look very different from a Gujarati or a Marathi. Similarly, an Oriya would be speaking and looking very different from a Punjabi or a Malayalee. That does not mean that a Naga or an Oriya is in any way a lesser citizen than a Hindi speaker or a Gujarati dresser.
The contributions to the formation of this nation are no less or more for any particular race or linguistic group. Just because an Oriya does not feel possessive about her language and customs, does not imply that she is in any way superior to a Bengali who is proud for her language and history. All races vary.
Genetic research has proven that present day India consists of four major ethnic groups and there are minor groups too. To claim that all Moslems are converts may not be exactly correct. Our history proves that Hindoo rulers were lesser in numbers compared to non-Hindoo rulers.
Therefore, to try and force a certain brand of uniformity instead of celebrating the diversity may gravely damage a nation that has historically never been — “Kashmir to Kanyakumari-India is One”. The idea to turn India into a corporate is a complete anti-thesis of the very spirit of our motherland.