Full marks to the Modi Government for remembering India’s naval prowess, which has been ignored in the modern age
There comes a time in the life of a nation, when it wants to reach out for a new paradigm, a new leader and a new set of tools. Some do it by going back to the heritage basket to re-invent and customise what has been practised over millennia to suit the current requirement, or re-craft the ongoing to look to the future, or else to draw upon parallel experience and experiments around the world to see what works for a particular context. Other options are also available.
This does not necessarily mean a change in leadership, persona or the fundamentals, though clearly, all this may follow or, indeed, if it happens, may even help. India is passing through such a stage. There has been a drastic change in the composition of national leadership, even though some of the messages are mixed. It’s difficult to figure out how the changes will ultimately shape up. Commenting on the possibilities of Indian independence in the 1930s of the last century, British political leader George lansbury had said that India was running a real danger of simply replacing the gora sahibs with the Brown sahibs. He was anticipating nearly 60 years of post-independence future of India.
If one looks at the orientation of the key leadership of the Indian National Congress, which led the Indian independence movement, a large proportion of the top leadership was educated in the UK. This meant three things. First, those who were in the leadership position were indoctrinated in Anglo-Saxon paradigms; second, they were wealthy enough to travel to England and to be educated there; and third, they belonged to a leading class of Indians, anyhow.
They showed themselves in the early decades of independent India. The official calendar of Government of India, in the wisdom of the first Prime Minister, had to be the shaka samvat, a calendar that nobody ever used even then, and nobody — not even the Government — uses now. But that is another matter altogether.
The most lionised kings of pre-British India were Ashok and Akbar. The first had denounced Hinduism and the second tried to set up a new faith called Din-e-Ilahi. Entire periods of Indian historical glory, typically of the Gupta dynasty with luminaries like Samudragupta or the glory of the Pallavas, were collapsed and compressed, in terms of span of treatments, to marginal value. The Government participation created its own folklore. That it suited the global postulate of the Fourth International of the world’s left movement, got for it ardent support of the Communist Party of India.
Power generates its own followers, national heroes and cheerleaders. Unfortunately, this kind of strange interpretation of historical processes did not stop here. It went on to distort Indian prowess, as evidenced through the enterprise of the Tamilians, the Malayalis, the Andhraites and others. It was forgotten that sea power did not come to India with the Portuguese, even though Jaime de Moraes would have us believe that.
The strong sea-orientation of some Maratha communities was obliterated from historical documentation, patronised by the Government. If Akbar, The Great, did not have a navy, then how could India have ever been naval power, many establishment-historians have questioned.
The centres of research and learning toed this line of thought. In any case, insulting traditions of India through the first three quarter of the 21 century, was nothing big. The seed-bed of thought leadership was weak. It is, therefore, like a breathe of fresh air to hear of the Sagar Mala programme of the current Government. Its emphasis on reviving ancient sea routes is welcome. Creating shipping infrastructure to revive India’s presence in the ocean named after it comes not a day too soon. It is going to be a long haul. This is a no-choice situation, if India is to be taken seriously, and be heard with care.
It is heartwarming that we have begun the process. One does not know if academic institutions are equipped to handle this. But then, that cannot be a reason for inaction. Here is an opportunity for consulting firms to forge forward. They can let this opportunity pass at their peril.