Latest news with #IndianNationalMovement
The Hindu
7 days ago
- General
- The Hindu
On the Indian National Movement
Daily Quiz | On the Indian National Movement Copy link Email Facebook Twitter Telegram LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit YOUR SCORE 0 /7 RETAKE THE QUIZ 1 / 7 | Which early 20th-century revolutionary group in Bengal served as a militant wing of the Anushilan Samiti and played a major role in armed resistance? DID YOU KNOW THE ANSWER? YES NO Answer : Jugantar SHOW ANSWER 2 / 7 | Which Indian revolutionary died fighting British forces on the banks of the Buribalam river in Odisha in 1915, after a fierce gun battle? DID YOU KNOW THE ANSWER? YES NO Answer : Bagha Jatin (Jatindranath Mukherjee) SHOW ANSWER 3 / 7 | The Chittagong Armoury Raid of 1930 was led by which iconic Bengali revolutionary? DID YOU KNOW THE ANSWER? YES NO Answer : Surya Sen SHOW ANSWER 4 / 7 | Who was the 19-year-old revolutionary hanged for the Writers' Building attack in 1931? DID YOU KNOW THE ANSWER? YES NO Answer : Dinesh Gupta SHOW ANSWER 5 / 7 | Who founded Communist Consolidation, a political group formed by inmates of the Cellular Jail in 1935, while imprisoned in the Andaman Islands? DID YOU KNOW THE ANSWER? YES NO Answer : Hare Krishna Konar SHOW ANSWER 6 / 7 | Acharya's dissatisfaction with Congress politics led him to write for which international leftist publication during the 1920s? DID YOU KNOW THE ANSWER? YES NO Answer : Freedom (an anarchist periodical) SHOW ANSWER
The Hindu
12-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Why C. Sankaran Nair's legacy cannot be compartmentalised
Recruiting historical figures — particularly stalwarts of the Indian National Movement — into contemporary political narratives has become a recurring strategy employed by Indian politicians. After deftly appropriating icons like Sardar Patel, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the BJP has recently 'discovered' a long-forgotten hero of the freedom struggle: Sir C. Sankaran Nair, the only stalwart from Kerala to have presided over the Indian National Congress. Not to be outdone, the Congress has scrambled to reclaim its former president — a man it had buried in to oblivion for nearly a century. The recent film Kesari Chapter 2: The Untold Story of Jallianwala Bagh, which portrays Sir C. Sankaran Nair as an unsung hero, has now brought him into the limelight. The political appropriation of Sir C. Sankaran Nair's legacy by both the BJP and the Congress is deeply problematic, given his complex historical positioning. The BJP highlights Nair's criticism of Mahatma Gandhi, particularly in his later work Gandhi and Anarchy (1922), where he questioned Gandhi's non-cooperation movement. By portraying Nair as a 'forgotten nationalist' sidelined by the Congress due to his opposition to Gandhi, the BJP reinforces its broader narrative of the Congress 'erasing' leaders who dissented from the Gandhi-Nehru line. However, reducing Nair's legacy to mere anti-Gandhism is a disservice to his multifaceted contributions. On the other hand, the Congress appears clueless in deciphering Nair's colossal personality, having ignored him for decades. The Autobiography of Sir C. Sankaran Nair, published by his daughter Lady Madhavan Nair in 1966, is a treasure trove for enthusiasts of modern Indian history. His prelude aptly underlines the historical significance of his memoirs, 'Reminiscences are sometimes regarded as the harmless hobbies of the advanced age […] I believe that interest in these reminiscences is not merely personal but historical. To be an octogenarian in a land where this species has become a rarity and to have spent over half a century in front ranks of public life forms perhaps a sufficient excuse for recapturing one's memories […] This has become all the more necessary on account of the publications of such books as the late Mr Montague's An Indian Diary and Sir Michael' O Dwyer's India as I Knew It which contain jaundiced versions of incidents of which I was once spectator and actor'. A liberal humanist Sir C. Sankaran Nair was a cosmopolitan thinker who loathed parochialism and ethnic nationalism. A lifelong member of London's National Liberal Club, he was a staunch advocate of universal liberty and equality. Even during his college days, he boldly challenged British racial supremacy. Once, when Justice Holloway, an English judge, asserted that the English were the only people never conquered, young Sankaran Nair refuted him by citing French historian Adolphe Thiers, who noted that the Normans — descendants of a French duchy — had conquered and enslaved the English. Holloway retorted that Normans and Saxons were of the same stock. 'By that logic,' Sankaran Nair shot back, 'we are all descended from Adam, rendering your argument meaningless!' This exchange epitomised his unwavering commitment to humanist ideals — principles that today's politicians, eager to exhume Nair for political gain, would likely find indigestible. Despite his differences with Gandhi, Sir C. Sankaran Nair shared some common ground with him. Both admired India's autonomous village republics; as a member of the Madras Legislative Council, Nair opposed the Village Cess Bill, fearing it would erode the traditional village system. He expressed hope that a future nationalist government would revive these republics. And similarly, like Gandhi, he was a passionate social reformer and eventually became president of the social reform movement. For Nair, political independence was not an end in itself but a means to achieve social regeneration. He made unsuccessful attempts to reform the matrilineal system among Kerala's Nairs and actively fought against caste oppression and gender disparities in Hindu law. Despite his disagreements with Gandhi, Nair acknowledged his global stature, remarking, 'Thanks to him, India has become a world problem.' However, in Gandhi and Anarchy, Nair sharply criticised the contradiction between Gandhi's doctrine of Ahimsa and his support for the caste system, which, according to Nair, helped align the reactionary elements of Hindu society with Gandhi's movement: 'The caste system is entirely opposed to the 'Ahimsa' (Non-injury) principle. The former has dedicated one of the main castes to death. Its function is to kill and be killed.' Stalwart of secularism Nair was neither a social conservative nor a status quoist. In his presidential address at the Amaravati Congress, he articulated his vision for a secular India: 'To break down the isolation of the Hindu religion, to remove the barriers preventing free social intercourse, to extend education to the lower classes, and to elevate women to equality with men, we require a strictly secular government in thorough sympathy with liberal thought and progress.' He initially opposed sectarian universities like the Banaras Hindu University, fearing they would foster communal strife. Mixing religion with politics repelled him, and extreme nationalism was anathema to his principles. Nair firmly believed in constitutional methods and rejected political fanaticism. This conviction led him to oppose Gandhi's non-cooperation movement as well as the Khilafat agitation. As Gandhi's influence grew, Nair receded from active politics, accepting his role with stoicism. In 1911, he wrote in The Contemporary Review (London): 'English law recognises the equality of all human beings, while Hindu law, rooted in caste immutability, divides society into rigid compartments. English law is individualistic; Indian law is communalistic. Under English law, England progressed astonishingly; Hindu law perpetuated a stagnant society, hastening its enslavement.' Nair admired Buddha and Christ, and even published an article on the Biblical sisters, Mary and Martha of Bethany, contrasting the West's action-oriented ethos (epitomised by Martha) with the East's contemplative tradition (symbolised by Mary). As the Viceroy's council member in charge of education, he advocated English as the medium of higher education, believing it essential for India's political progress, social reform, and women's emancipation. It is doubtful whether the BJP, with its conservative social outlook, can genuinely embrace Nair's liberal secularism. Protector of free speech Nair was a fearless practitioner of free speech. As the third Indian appointed to the Viceroy's Executive Council, he oversaw education, health, and land. During World War I, as the member in charge of ecclesiastical affairs, he was presented with a draft prayer for churches, seeking Allied victory. Nair refused, stating: 'Christ does not take sides in war. 'He who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword'— that is His teaching.' His defiance cost him the ecclesiastical portfolio, but he never compromised his principles for political expediency. Even the Viceroy felt the sting of his candour. After resigning from the Viceroy's Council in protest against the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, Nair had a final interview with Viceroy Chelmsford, who asked if he had a successor to recommend. 'Yes,' Nair replied, pointing to his peon. 'What?' exclaimed the shocked Viceroy. 'Why not? He is tall, handsome, wears his livery well, and will agree to everything you say. An ideal council member!' This fearless wit contrasts sharply with today's political climate, where the BJP nurtures an ecosystem of 'repressive tolerance'— mirroring the Congress's authoritarianism during the Emergency. A thorough pragmatist K.P.S. Menon, Independent India's first Foreign Secretary and Nair's son-in-law, wrote in Builders of Modern India: C. Sankaran Nair (1967), 'Once, I remarked to Nair: 'Your time in the Viceroy's Council must have been the most fruitful period of your life.' 'Fruitful?' he exclaimed. 'It was hellish… hellish.' After a pause, he added: 'Still, perhaps it was fruitful. I would have no regrets if I advanced Indian unity as I did Indian freedom.' Nair's tenure — hellish for him but fruitful for India — cements his place among the nation's builders. Unlike many of today's politicians, whose careers are fruitful for themselves but hellish for the nation, Nair embodied selfless service. He was a political realist. As Menon noted, 'The vision of 'Mother India,' with its emotional overtones, held no appeal for Sankaran Nair. He never romanticised a golden past, nor did he see India as a mystic entity, as Jawaharlal Nehru sometimes did. To him, India was a land of millions — ignorant, illiterate, half-starved, superstitious, and shackled by caste.' Tragically, India's reality remains as deplorable today as in Nair's time. If politicians genuinely care for the masses, they should learn from Nair's selflessness and integrity rather than exploit him for propaganda fodder. Sir C. Sankaran Nair was a visionary liberal, a secularist, and a fearless advocate of justice — qualities scarce in today's political landscape. Reducing him to a partisan mascot insults his legacy. Faisal C.K. is Deputy Law Secretary to the Government of Kerala.
