There have been ample opinions about our new President. While some hail  him as the great scientist who has given strength to the Indian Nation, others have criticized him for his narrow approach about the strength of a Nation. Can military strength be equated to the might of the Nation? They  argue. There is another deep-rooted aspect about the understanding of our President, which needs some introspection. It is not that he is the only one to hold such an opinion about 'We' as a nation. But since he now occupies the highest office of the land we need to examine it. Prior to his election during one of his statements he pointed out that 'We', the Indian Nation have not focused on our strength, military technology so the foreigners kept invading us.
 
This, according to him is the major cause of our plight today. As we were a weak-Nation militarily so what we need is to overcome this. In today's parlance it means we should focus more on bombs and missiles, the technologies and weapons that have made him the darling of ruling establishment and a section of vocal class. The two pertinent points emerging from honorable Presidents understating are, one, whether a Nation can be strong when it has more firepower or is it strong if its people are well fed, well taken care of? In a way it is the revival of Guns or Butter debate. The second point, which emerges, is the historical continuity of our identity. What does this mean in today's context? Have 'we' been a  Nation from last three or five thousand or ten thousand years? When did 'we' begin as Indian Nation? How is it important to understand this question, what relevance it has got for our polity today?
 
The major confusion, which prevails about 'we', pertains to the one of continuity and change of a community. Also in popular notions the differences between Kingdoms, colonial set up and the Nation state is not very clear. To cap it there is a tendency to identify one's nationhood with the religion of kings. What Mr. Kalam is stating tantamount to confusing at all the levels. Kingdoms had a different logic and to think that the era of Hindu Kings was our era and the coming in of Muslim Kings was slavery holds no water. The Muslim kings who came here settled here and raised an administration from this soil only. One recalls the two Navaratnas in the court of Akbar being Hindus, twenty four percent of the officials in Shahjahans court and 34% in Aurangzebs court being Hindus.The social structure was not much disturbed and the drainage of wealth as in the case of British rule did not take place. One does not wish to ignore the Muslim Kings who came here for plunder in different phases of History. But has plundering others kingdoms been a crime during the era of Kingdoms? Kings irrespective of their religions have plundered other kings areas.
 
Colonial period was a different cup of tea. Here the colonial powers came to plunder the raw materials and to establish a market for their industrial goods. The administration was geared towards this aim. It is in the womb of colonialism that the modern India comes into being through the struggle of people to get more facilities for local industries, through  the caste and gender struggles for equality and through the aim of driving away the British rule. Now this process was described by many as 'India is a Nation in the making', and since Mahatma Gandhi was leading this greatest mass movement of twentieth century he was given the status of Father of the Nation.
 
This mainstream process was opposed by the feudal elements and the ideologues of pre-modern values. Those opposed to the emerging modern values of caste and gender equality put forward alternate view of Nationhood. The ideologues of Muslim Communal politics pointed out that Muslims are a separate Nation since the time of Mohammed bin Kasim. This seed later developed into the ideological base of Muslim League. Chaudhary Rahmat Ali gave it first verbal expression when along with a group of Cambridge students he coined the word, Pakistan (P for Punjab, A for Afghans, K for Kashmir, S for Sind and sthan, the Persian suffix meaning country) Jinnah identified again with Islam based nation when in 1941 he
said that Pakistan is the only way to save Islam in India.
 
The alternative view, the view, which operated on the same wavelength, but came to different conclusion, was that this is a Hindu Nation from last five thousand years. The ideologues of this view initially said that since the time of arrival of Aryans from the artic zone, this is a Hindu Nation. Interestingly a section of this stream welcomed the colonization of India by the British. As per them the Aryans who came from the Arctic zone divided into two streams one went to Europe, the second coming to India. So coming of the British here is like the reunion of the parted cousins. Keshub Chandra Sen put this forward very strongly. It accepted the logic propounded by British that British have come here to liberate us from the atrocities of Muslim kings. Later this stream slightly modified the understanding by saying that Aryans are the original natives of this land, they came from nowhere. This was done to suit the ideology of 'First Comer', in the context of demonizing the Muslim. If Aryans also came from outside and Muslims came from outside so a type of parity gets established between Aryans and Muslims, both coming from outside. So this turn around.
 
This tendency got consolidated into Hindu Mahasabha and RSS. M.S. Golwalkar,  the second sarsanghchalak of RSS, states," As a child of this soil, our well-evolved society has been living here for thousands of years. This society has been known especially, in modern times, as Hindu society. This
is a historical fact. For it is the forefathers of Hindu people who have set up standards and traditions... prescribed duties and rights...(and) shed their blood in defense of the sanctity and integrity of the
Motherland. That all this, has been done by Hindu people is a fact in which our history of thousands of years bears eloquent testimony. It means that only Hindus have been living here as child of soil". (Bunch of Thoughts, 1966, 123-24, from Khaki Shorts, Basu et al 1993.)
 
Contrary to these concepts, which were based on Religion as nationalism, the major concept about 'we' was put forward by the National movement. In this concept of 'we' there is continuity and change both. It does begin from the ancient traditions but only in the context of ongoing change. It does not take religion as the marker of Nationhood. There is a dynamic concept of Nation in the process of formation due to the changes in material conditions and ideas. This concept of 'we' takes all the castes and  religions on parity as the citizens and this 'we' also treats women and men on equal footing as citizens. And this is what got enshrined in the  constitution, "We the people of India, having resolved to constitute India  into a Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic and to secure all its citizens: Justice...Liberty...Equality...and Fraternity". (From Preamble to our constitution). There is parity in the 'we' of Muslim League and  RSS, where Nation is constituted by the people belonging to one religion. The other concept of 'we', the one enshrined in our constitution is the polar opposite of what Muslim League and RSS take as their base.
Unfortunately, lately the concept of we given in our constitution is deliberately being undermined in the propaganda of the communal forces.
 
And many of us show this confusion, our Honorable President included. Its time that Mr. Kalam as the top functionary and custodian of our constitution strives to adopt the meaning of 'we' as per the values of our
freedom struggle and the one's enshrined in our constitution. The 'we' of  Golawalkar and Jinnah can and should be dumped in the museum of deviations of freedom movement and the 'we' of Gandhi, Nehru and Maulana Abul Kalam be our credo.
 
(The writer works for EKTA, Committee for Communal Amity, Mumbai)