 It was at a plenary session of the Congress that I had my first glimpse of her — a bright eyed, slender girl in a frock.
To us who were born about a decade earlier, ‘Indu’ was the darling child of the Nehru family. My husband who looked up to Motilal Nehru as a senior, both in public life and in the legal profession, was a friend of Jawaharlal, and my sister Purnima Banerji who lived in Allahabad, visited Anand Bhawan oftener than I did. From them I learnt over the years that Indira was sent to Pune, then to Santiniketan and Europe, for her education. News that Indira was to marry Feroze reached my husband Asaf Ali and me in Delhi. Happenings in the Nehru family being part of the staple of conversation in political circles, we also heard that there was opposition from some members of the family and from orthodox circles in the community who disapproved of a Kashmiri Brahmin girl marrying a Parsi. Objection was also raised on the ground that Feroze’s family did not belong to the elite upper crust of society. Jawaharlal Nehru himself, we thought, would have preferred for his daughter a person from a family of distinction, with an intellectual background, patriotic and public-spirited — in short, someone like himself. But there had been a generational change. Unlike Jawaharlal, who had let his father arrange his marriage, Indira made her own choice, preferring to marry a man of modern means and background whom she knew and liked and who was involved in the freedom struggle, rather than a distinguished stranger. Jawaharlal accepted his daughter’s decision as soon as he realized that it was not based on a passing fancy but was well considered. And in the columns of the Harijan, Gandhiji criticized the narrow mindedness of those Hindus who opposed the inter-provincial and inter-community alliance. At the marriage, which took place on 26 March 1942, Asaf and I were among the small number of invitees from outside Allahabad who were present, alongwith relatives of the couple from both the families. The simplicity of the ceremony, conducted in the inner precincts of Anand Bhawan, was in striking contrast to the pomp and pageantry — this used to be much talked about — which Motilal Nehru insisted on for his son’s marriage in 1916. Both Indira and Feroze were dressed in Khadi, with flowers, instead of gold and diamonds, serving as jewellery for Indira and enhancing her natural beauty. The celebrations were rounded off with a typical Kashmiri feast. While I was working underground during the Quit India struggle, I heard that both Indira and Feroze had been arrested at Allahabad when Indira addressed a public meeting in defiance of prohibitory orders, and lodged in Naini Jail. Four decades later, Indira Gandhi recalled one of her experiences as a political prisoner. This was when, in response to my invitation, she was good enough to inaugurate the photo type-setting and printing facility at Link House in February 1984 — less than nine months before her assassination. She spoke of how she and her fellow women prisoners in Naini Jail used to follow the activities of underground freedom fighters such as myself, and other events in the country, through newspapers that were smuggled in: “In this I was greatly helped by my husband Feroze Gandhi, who happened to be in a nearby barrack with the jail dairy in between. He managed to persuade or bribe whoever worked in the dairy so that morning at 5.30, just before we were unlocked, a little ball was thrown across — the newspaper packed very tight into a little ball. To us the noise seemed like an explosion, so loud in the quietness of the early dawn; but fortunately the jail authorities didn’t hear it. So we would walk towards it, looking very careless, and pick it up as if you were picking up a leaf that had fallen, and somehow bring it in.” Feroze, who was managing the affairs of the National Herald at Lucknow, visited Delhi frequently until he, too, settled down in the capital and entered the first Lok Sabha. He was friendly to those of us who belonged to the Left and we met often at his M.P.’s bungalow on Queen Victoria (now Dr. Rajendra Prasad) Road. I remember seeing, on some of my visits to his house, Rajiv and Sanjay playing on the lawns with their father, and Indira sometimes coming in the evening and taking the children back. Indira Gandhi’s political outlook and mine were at that time often at variance. She was rooted in the Congress Party, while my chequered political career included membership of Left parties and groups. But this did not affect the warmth of our personal relations. When my husband died in Berne in April 1953 and I returned to Delhi with his body for burial in the city with which he was so closely identified, Jawaharlal asked me to stay with him for some days at Teen Murti House. I was touched by Indira’s personal attention and understanding. Later in the year when I lay precariously ill in a Moscow hospital, I found one day a flurry of activity to spruce up the place. It turned out that this was in honour of the Indian Prime Minister’s daughter, who was on a visit by herself to the Soviet Union. Indira came to the hospital with a bouquet of flowers, accompanied by Ambassador K.P.S. Menon. She cheered me up and hoped that I would be back soon in Delhi. Indira Gandhi became the heroine of Link House after 1969 and so she remained through the stirring years of bank nationalization, abolition of the princes’ privy purses and the liberation of Bangladesh. The role of the United States of America during the Bangladesh crisis, when its 7th Fleet was deployed in the Bay of Bengal, convinced Indira Gandhi that India’s national interests required the strengthening of relations with the Soviet Union which had proved itself over the years to be a reliable friend. The signing of the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Co-operation marked the end of the fear, which she had earlier been inclined to entertain, of Moscow encouraging Indian Communists in activities hostile to the Congress. Indira Gandhi’s initiatives of the early seventies antagonized the Rightist, communal and disruptive forces. Lawless agitations were fomented by a motley combination of political groups, encouraged by hostile foreign forces intent on toppling her and destabilizing India. To arrest this dangerous trend, Indira Gandhi proclaimed a state of internal emergency. This step was supported in the initial stages by me and my colleagues of the Left. But there emerged a few months later some distortions of the emergency regulations. Despite these unfortunate developments, my colleagues and I were extremely depressed by the reverses suffered by the Congress Party all over Northern India in the elections of March 1977. I could never imagine that Indira Gandhi herself would be defeated. After a sleepless night, hearing and pondering on the election results as they were announced on radio, I rushed in the morning to Indira Gandhi without asking for an appointment, and saw her looking lost and desolate. I myself was greatly affected and found it hard to believe that she would no longer be at the helm of affairs. I held her hands and told her of my intuitive conviction that the great misunderstanding between her and the people was temporary. Her eyes filled with tears when I said to her that people would come back to her. “When,” she asked sadly, “after I am dead?” No, I said with confidence, she would be vindicated very soon. Little did I know then that she would be reelected to the Lok Sabha within twenty months and would resume prime ministership in less than three years. My last meeting with her was on 15 October 1984. I told her of the ominous rumours I had heard, of her impending liquidation, during my visits to Punjab to promote the Rashtriya Ekta Andolan in an effort to prevent a communal flare-up; of the bitterness felt by fanatical elements, even including women in the Sikh community. I urged her to take great care of herself and to curtail her movement. “I can’t give up meeting the people,” she said. “Why not wear a bullet-proof jacket at least?” I asked. She smiled the suggestion away. Such was her courage, and such her trust that she did not countenance the idea of changing the composition of her bodyguard. She could not imagine the possibility of being done to death by the very persons to whom her personal security was entrusted.
0 Comments
Speech at the third Non-aligned Summit Conference, Lusaka, September 9th, 1970.  Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Delegates, I welcome this opportunity to give the greetings of the people of India to the Government and people of Zambia, and to the Heads and Representatives of the nations who have gathered here. President Tito deserves our special thanks. But for his unremitting efforts, perhaps this meeting would not have taken place. We are glad that this Non-aligned Conference is meeting for the first time in southern Africa close to the spirit, the mood and the very heart-beat of Africa. Here in Lusaka, we can feel the ebb and flow of the continuing battle against remnants of colonialism in Angola and Mozambique. We can feel the vibrations of the struggle against the minority Government in Zimbabwe, and the apartheid policies of the racist regime in the Union of South Africa, and of the stirrings of the national movements in Namibia and in Guinea Bissau. These freedom fighters are engaged in the same battle as we were only recently. They are risking their lives for the same principles that we hold dear. We extend our support to these brave men and women. As I said yesterday, the revolution of our times is unfinished, and the purpose of this conference is to draw up a clear programme of action to carry it forward. This is the challenge that the decade of the seventies places before the non-aligned countries. Only a short while ago, the issues of war and peace, of the disposal of human beings and their destinies, were decided in a few capitals of the world. No longer is it so because millions of people in the resurgent continents of Asia, of Africa, of Latin America and the Caribbeans, have come into their own. Because we determined that decisions involving us — whether concerning war and peace, or the direction and pace of our social, economic and political development, could be made only by us, in our own way, and in our own countries. That is how non-alignment was born. It expressed our individual and collective sovereignty, our devotion to freedom and peace, and our urgent need to give to our people a better life and the opportunity to live in freedom, in dignity and in peace. At no time was there any intention to set up a third world. This is our endeavour. The odds are tremendous. Each step has met with criticism and opposition. But we have carried on. Let us not be deterred by cynics and hostile propaganda of the powerful media of communications. From the beginning, there has been no lack of inquisitors, who looked upon non-alignment as heresy, and distorted its meaning. They said it would not work. But we can answer back in the famous words of Galileo — "And yet — it moves". The criticism of non-alignment has shifted on two counts. Those who now concede that non-alignment had some utility in the days of the cold war confrontation maintain that this is no longer so. The reviling is not any more about the basis and principle, but of its practice. Have the non-aligned States lost their relevance? The answer is an emphatic no. Twenty-five years after the last holocaust, the world is not yet on the brink of peace. The nuclear balance of terror still confronts us. The war in Vietnam is said to be waged with "conventional" weapons, yet these include chemical contamination of food and plant life. The only way to have a clean war is not to have a war at all. Hence India stands and works for total disarmament. The Great Powers certainly have the major responsibility for international peace and security. We welcome all initiative towards the resolution of differences through negotiations, but even if they reach accord on their common interests, and decide upon mutually acceptable limitation of strategic arsenals, the rest of the world, of which we form a considerable part, could hardly remain mere onlookers. We have an equal stake in peace, but the quality of peace should be such as will ensure our own sovereignty and security. Not only national honour but national interest demand that we do not mortgage our decisions in domestic and in international affairs to foreign dictates. This was one element of our policy of non-alignment. As the logical corollary, we rejected the enmities of our erstwhile rulers. As my father declared: "We are in no camp and in no military alliance. The only camp we should like to be in is the camp of peace which should include as many countries as possible." May I thank the Conference for its gracious gesture in memory of my father, and the many distinguished delegates for their kind reference to him? We decided that our respective territories should not be used for the subjugation of other people, for subversion, or for the carving out of spheres of influence. Indian manpower and resources had been used for imperialist purposes. Once free, we declared that this would no longer be permitted. We have all been subjected to domination, exploitation and the humiliation of racial discrimination. How could we compromise with racialism in any form? The pernicious theory that one man is superior to another merely on the ground of race or birth has been proved to be false, yet it continues to dominate the thinking of many. Today's world is a single entity. We are deeply convinced that by staying out of military pacts, the non-aligned countries can use their collective wisdom and influence to tip the balance of power in favour of peace and international co-operation. These have been the positive achievements of non-alignment. If today belief in the efficacy of military pacts has weakened, if historic animosities are giving way to essays in friendship and co-operation, if a breath of realism is influencing international policies towards detente, the nations assembled here can claim some credit. However, this should not lull us into complacency. The big powers have never accepted the validity of non-alignment. Neither colonialism, nor racialism has vanished. The old comes back in new guise. There are subtle intrigues to undermine our self-confidence and to sow dissensions and mutual distrust amongst us. Powerful vested interests, domestic and foreign, are combining to erect new structures of neo-colonialism. These dangers can be combatted by our being united in our adherence to the basic tenets of non-alignment. I have touched upon certain general points, but on such an occasion, one cannot ignore some of the explosive situations which confront the world. I should like to take this opportunity to convey our admiration and best wishes to President Nasser for his statesmanship and courage in accepting the ceasefire. We disapprove of Israel's intransigence. Israel should be prevailed upon to comply fully with the U.N. Security Council Resolution of November, 1967. We cannot deny to the people of Palestine their inalienable right to the homeland from which they were exiled. The situation in South-East Asia has further deteriorated. We are deeply concerned about the spreading of the conflict to Cambodia. All foreign forces should withdraw from the various countries of Indo-China, the lead being by the U.S.A. Our assessment, based on talks with the various parties concerned, has led us to believe that a broad-based government, comprising all elements of South Vietnam, would pave the way for the success of the Paris talks. Recent developments in Laos indicate the possibility of talks between the two sides there. As Member and Chairman of the International Commission, we have offered our good offices to both the concerned parties for this purpose. To preserve peace and to provide for the reconstruction of this war-torn area, some kind of international convention or agreement should be signed by all the parties concerned as well as the great powers and other interested parties to ensure respect for the neutrality, independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of all the Indo-China States. We have been deeply disturbed by the reported intention of the United Kingdom and other Governments to supply arms to the Government of South Africa. This dangerous and retrograde step will threaten the neighbours of South Africa and also the Indian Ocean area. Any accretion to South Africa's military capability will abet its policy of apartheid and racial discrimination and may encourage it to annex other territories. The argument that this is being done to protect the so-called security of sea routes, is untenable. We would like the Indian Ocean to be an area of peace and co-operation. Foreign military bases will create tension and great power rivalry. The spirit of freedom goes hand in hand with the spirit of equality. Beyond the political problems of the Unfinished Revolution, there are complex and difficult economic tasks. However, a realistic appraisal of our natural resources, our capacities and our competence reveal the possibility of our working together to reduce our dependence on those who do not respect our sovereignty so that economic leverage for thinly disguised political purposes cannot be used against us. Neo-colonialism has no sympathy with our efforts to achieve self-reliance. It seeks to perpetuate our position of disadvantage. International markets are so manipulated that primary producing countries have a permanent handicap. The levers of technology also are operated against us through unequal collaboration and royalty agreements. Hence, we have to redouble our effort to gain for each nation the opportunity to develop to its full stature. The primary responsibility rests upon each developing country, but we also owe a duty to one another. The fallacy that there is no complementality between our economies, has so far made it difficult to realise the undoubted potential of mutual co-operation. There is greater complementality amongst our economies than between the economies of developed nations. Yet, advanced nations have been more successful in forming instruments of co-operation amongst themselves and our own effort in this direction has not even begun. The potential of trade and economic co-operation amongst us has been left virtually unexplored. By meeting each other's needs, we would diversify our trade, safeguard it against the caprices of international commerce, and reduce our dependence on middle-men and brokers. by Archishman Raju  Visvabharati was officially founded as a university in 1921 just as the Western world order was emerging from a major crisis: the first world war and the Indian freedom struggle was taking a mass form.The objects of the university were declared in its founding constitution. The first four objectives were (i) to study the mind of Man in its realisation of different aspects of truth from diverse points of view; (ii) to bring into more intimate relations with one another, through patient study and research, the different cultures of the East on the basis of their underlying unity; (iii) to approach the West from the standpoint of such a unity of the life and thought of Asia (iv) to seek to realise in a common fellowship of study the meeting of the East and the West, and thus ultimately to strengthen the fundamental conditions of world peace through the establishment of free communication of ideas between the two hemispheres; Visvabharati’s founding objective made it more than just a university, its significance is not confined to its institutional boundaries. Visvabharati is a school of thought, an ideal that requires continuing interpretation and striving. My aim here is to interpret the Visvabharati ideal in the context of our current world situation and Tagore’s philosophy. The third objective of Visvabharati, “to approach the West from the standpoint” of “unity of the life and thought of Asia” represents an epistemic break in social scientific work that carries immense relevance in our time. The first part of the Visvabharati Ideal was to study the mind of Man. How was Man to know Man? Tagore approached the question of knowledge of humanity not from a positivist perspective, but from the standpoint of the divinity of humanity. In his later lectures on The Religion of Man, he wrote “The idea of the humanity of our God, or the divinity of Man the Eternal, is the main subject of this book.” The divinity of humanity was visible in the songs of the Baul and poets like Dadu and Kabir, both of which traditions were studied in Visvabharati. Human beings had contradictions within their nature and goodness and truth were represented in those aspects that were divine. Therefore, when individual men realized a truth greater than themselves, they were reflecting Man the divine. Tagore believed that knowledge of this divine aspect of humanity required love. As Tagore wrote in Sadhana, “Essentially man is not a slave either of himself or of the world; but he is a lover. His freedom and fulfilment is in love, which is another name for perfect comprehension”. The knowledge of humanity was not to be an impersonal knowledge, but a knowledge rooted in love. It would be a knowledge that did not seek freedom from humanity, but freedom in union with humanity. This freedom would not come from mere intellectual pursuit. As Tagore said, “It is the duty of every human being to master, at least to some extent, not only the language of intellect, but also that personality which is the language of Art” Music and Art would play an important role in the education of and creation unity of humanity. Finally, such knowledge must be based in “the life-current of the people”. This was the reason that Tagore wanted to establish Visvabharati not in a major Indian city, but in a rural setting. The second part of the Visvabharati ideal was to bring together the different cultures of the East. To understand this ideal, one must understand Tagore’s philosophy of history, which drew from the Indian historical experience. As Uma Dasgupta writes, Tagore viewed India as a social civilization. Tagore argued in his essay on Indian history written in 1903 “What is the chief significance of Bharatavarsha? If a precise answer to this question is sought, the answer is available. And the history of Bharatavarsha upholds that answer. We find that a single objective has always been motivating Bharatavarsha. This objective has been to establish unity among diversity, to make various paths move towards one goal, to experience the One-in-many as the innermost reality, to pursue with total certitude that supreme principle of inner unity that runs through the differences. It has also been her endeavour to achieve these without destroying the distinctions that appear in the external world. The ability to perceive this oneness in diversity and to strive to extend unity are the native characteristics of Bharatavarsha.” In this sense, the second ideal attempted to concretely pursue the historical legacy of our civilization. In the second issue of Visvabharati Quarterly, Tagore wrote on “The Way to Unity”. The modern world would require a reworking of this historical legacy of Indian civilization. Technological changes have made the world a much smaller place (more so today than a century ago when Tagore was writing). The challenge was, as Tagore put it, “the more the doors are opening and the walls breaking down outwardly, the greater is the force which the consciousness of individual distinction is gaining within” Tagore wrote that “Individuality is precious, because only through it we can realise the universal”. Rather than suppressing individual personality and subsuming it within a collective identity, the way to unity was for individual personality to expand outward and unite with humanity through sacrifice. This was the great objective of Indian civilization. Kalidas Bhattacharya, writing on the construction of a systematic philosophy of history from the ideas of Gandhi and Tagore, wrote that such a philosophy would view History as “a study of the continuous process of re-creation of systematic unity through loving conquest of alienations”. This view of history is central to understanding the Visvabharati ideals. Writing on the concept of an “Eastern University”, Tagore wrote “in our centre of Indian learning, we must provide for the co-ordinate study of all these different cultures,--the Vedic, the Puranic, the Buddhist, the Jain, the Islam, the Sikh and the Zoroastrian. The Chinese, Japanese and Tibetan will also have to be added” Tagore believed that assimilating the civilizational inheritance of Asia would be a necessary step to understanding the West. Tagore was a pioneer of a new kind of Pan-Asian movement. He was foresighted in opening the Cheena Bhavan along with Tan Yun Shan as he understood that India and China would need sources of communication and understanding. When Kalidas Nag, who also accompanied Tagore on his trip to China in 1924, attended the inter-Asian relations conference organized in 1947, he wrote that Tagore was acknowledged not only as a literary giant but also acknowledged as a “pioneer in reviving inter-Asian relations in modern times”. The third ideal was radical and harder to understand. Writing on modernity, the Japanese intellectual Takeuchi Yoshimi interpreted the concept of an Asian view as a method for Asia’s self-formation. Yoshimi asked why Japanese modernization had always been compared to Western modernization, rather than with Chinese or Indian modernization. Further, he argued that Japan and China were representative of different types of modernization. Interestingly, Yoshimi relied on Tagore to bring out this difference. Yoshimi wrote “Tagore was regarded in Japan as a poet of a ruined nation…But in China he was seen as a champion for the cause of national emancipation. These different readings pose a problem for us.” The resolution was for Asia to consider its own experiences and, for Tagore, it could only begin to assimilate the Western contribution to humanity after it had done so. The Visvabharati ideal suggested not only that Asian cultures should study each other, but furthermore that they should not evaluate themselves vis-a-vis the West, but rather evaluate the West vis-a-vis themselves. This first required a synthesis of the core values of Asian civilizations and Tagore believed such a synthesis has its basis in a shared historical and civilizational experience. Indian modernity, for example, is usually often discussed in its distinction from Western modernity, but almost never in comparison to Chinese modernity. This intercivilizational dialogue in Asia is an essential part of understanding Asian modernity, and more broadly, colored modernity so Asia’s rise can be self-conscious rather than imitative. It is only then that the fourth Visvabharati ideal, that of world peace, can be realized. The conversation on the rise of Asia in our time is primarily dominated by the economic rise of Asia. Whereas Asia contributed a mere 15% share of the world GDP in 1970 (with Europe and North America having about 76%), its share now has risen to more than 38% with the number even higher when taken in terms of PPP. World economic growth is primarily driven by the rise of Asia. Within Asia, the rise of China has been most spectacular and China, an Asian country, is nowadays referred to as “a great power” because of its economic, military and geopolitical strength. Currently, India has some of the highest economic growth rates in Asia and India is expected to become a leading economic power in the next two decades. There is also the geopolitical rise of Asia or the growth in the relative strength of Asian nation states and their ability to change global institutions. However, more important than this is the human rise of Asia. Life expectancy in China has risen from 61 to 79 in the past 50 years and from 51 to 71 in India in the same period. There has been a fall in poverty led by China’s elimination of extreme poverty and a fall in infant mortality all over Asia. In general, there are many more people in Asia who now have a chance at life and potentiality to contribute to the world. As humanity in Asia rises, its consciousness will seek to shape the world. Unfortunately, the intellectual discourse in India does not reflect this. It continues to talk about the changing world order primarily through narrow strategic objectives. These objectives are understood now in realist and pragmatic terms, decrying the supposed idealism of the past. They attempt to imitate and modify Western institutions rather than breaking from them. Yet, for all its boasts on the supposed superiority of a Western style pragmatic nation state, India’s recent foreign policy has been a visible failure. It has ignored India’s history and its civilizational legacy. At the dawn of independence, India led colored modernity through the inter-Asian relations conference, the Bandung conference, the Panchsheel principles, institutes of Asian and African relations and movements for world peace. Today, our misleadership stands stand mute in the face of genocide and oppression. The people must turn back to our civilizational legacy to shape our relationship to humanity. Rather than imitating Western style think tanks which offer the cold logic of imperialism, the Visvabharati ideal asks us to consider institutes of peace and intercivilizational dialogue, to be able to truly construct a society where divine humanity has its rightful place. Archishman Raju is an editor of Vishwabandhu Journal.
by Nandita Chaturvedi We in India stand at a new crossroads. We are part of the broader movement throughout Asia of greater democratic possibilities as more of our people emerge from the dark dungeons of illiteracy and poverty. Today we are asking as a nation, who will we be? Our history is being brought into question, and ideas that held a sacred place in our national discourse, such as satyagraha and non-alignment, are being questioned and re-examined. This is of course a necessary process, and every people must undertake the task of reassessing their history. Yet, this process needs intellectuals who are in democratic and close dialogue with the nation’s people. We are faced today with the presence of a middle and upper middle class who aspire to the West. This group was first intentionally manufactured to provide clerks and lawyers for the British during colonialism, responsible for ruling on behalf of the British empire as half-white men. The Indian freedom movement challenged the middle classes to examine their own people and history, and side with the tide of resistance against the British. It is then that several who were trained by the British committed class and race suicide to join and lead the freedom movement. A large section of them later joined the project of nation building under Nehru’s leadership. The next generation would lose their ideological and moral moorings and be unable to respond as our nation faced a crisis of leadership after the assassination of Indira Gandhi and, eventually, the opening up of the economy to foreign investment and the nation to Western ideas. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, this class has grown and amassed unprecedented wealth as the financial reforms benefitted them over all other sections of Indian society. They now have access to Western goods in Indian markets, and overwhelmingly send their children to either the US or Europe for education. Several of them work for international companies, and perhaps a majority of them have a family member who lives in the US. What has happened is the creation of a class of people who are aspirational to whiteness, want to escape the nations where they live and believe in the white images projected to the world through mass media, Instagram and Facebook. Our middle classes have, then, a double consciousness. They see their people and themselves through two vantage points, one of the Indian freedom struggle, and the other of the white world. Each successive generation has lost its anchoring in the Indian and Nehruvian traditions, becoming more and more white in their world view. They are now isolated from the majority of their countrymen, in contrast to earlier times when the elite was intricately connected to the aspirations of ordinary people. The urban upper middle classes have been consumed by universal selfishness, and have no sense of their responsibility to their nations. This is easily seen in their call for a new ‘non-aligned movement’ based on pragmatism that would align India with Europe and Japan. Even in the midst of an anti-American wave they see their kin in Europe, for they are white in their self conceptualization. This grouping shows a complete lack of historical, principled or even practical thinking. On the other hand, the creation of this class has been possible only because of the unprecedented success Indians have had as an immigrant group in the United States. Built initially on the gains of the civil rights and African American freedom movement, the acceptance of Indians in positions of economic and even political strength is second perhaps only to the Jews in America. The Indian Americans wield a disproportionate influence on the Indian mind, culture and even economy. Their visibility has led the middle class youth within India to believe that paradise awaits at the end of immigration in the form of an American corporate job, unimaginable material success and a cultural community of Indians. They have shown the world that a narrow cultural nationalism for Indian civilization is indeed compatible and maybe even complementary with becoming white. All of this, and their acceptance into the American racial hierarchy has made Indian Americans, specially first generation, decadent and flabby. They believed that the American dream would last forever, and the message for Indians was that there would always be a place for them in the white world order. Yet, all of this was constructed on the older neo-liberal assumptions of the American world order which are now falling away with Trump. We are now seeing the assumptions behind the veneer of Obama and Biden as the American empire turns on itself. A recent New York Times article showed the confusion among Indians trying to immigrate to the United States. Several of the people interviewed in the article claimed to have “worked hard” to get where they were, and that they deserved a job from American companies. This belief, in the context of a nation where the African American experience shows that wealth and upward social mobility is not the result of ‘hard work’, betrays a sense of entitlement never before seen among Indians. We should welcome seeing the truth of whiteness rather than retreat into cowardice at having the illusion of a benevolent America taken from us. Middle class Indian youth have a conceptualization of their path towards whiteness, which will continue to break down. An alternative sense of self is needed. Middle class youth in India are uneducated in their own history of struggle, and do not know what has produced them. They do not know how their education and financial prosperity has been built up on the sacrifice and struggle of their people, and in particular how they have reaped the benefits of the Nehruvian state in their education and employment. Instead, they are guided by sentiments that align well with the American liberal intelligentsia. They uphold abstract notions of ‘democracy’ which to them signifies the freedom to do as they please and have access to the products of American capitalism. Ironically, the BJP government, which is, on the surface, critical of liberal cultural norms has facilitated this by attempting to come closer to the US both economically and culturally. To some this article may read as an angry tirade against our middle classes. Yet, a national assessment is necessary. The events in Bangladesh, Venezuela and Iran hold a warning for us. Bangladesh specially showed that a westward facing youth population, unaware of its own history can be easily manipulated to go against their governments. Facilitated by social media companies, known to work in the interests of American intelligence, protests of thousands can be organized overnight. These protests have no clear leadership, and appear ‘spontaneous’. In Bangladesh, youth burned down Sheikh Mujibur’s house, maybe unaware that they were actively facilitating the Western takeover of their self determination. Some entered Hasina’s bedroom and put on her clothes, partaking in the Western denigration and humiliation of their own people and the legacy of their freedom movement. While the concerns that initiated the protests may have legitimacy, their evaluation becomes impossible in the face of a coup d'etat. In Iran, several thousands of protesters and hundreds, possibly thousands of security personnel have been killed in protests against the government. While the protests were initially addressing an economy made weak by Western sanctions, this turn to violence is worrying for the stability of the Iranian state. There is nothing that Israel and the American ruling elite would like more than to have a destabilized Iran descend into chaos. Israeli and American politicians have openly announced that Mossad agents are among the protesters inciting violence. Are all the violent elements in the protests direct agents, or could some of them be useful idiots? We cannot clearly know for certain, but the ideological infiltration of Iranian society by liberal Western ideas definitely opens up that possibility. This has, again, been made possible by the Iranian Americans lobbying for the West’s involvement in Iran. Lastly, Maduro’s capture from a Venezuelan security facility could not have been possible without deep infiltration of its state and government by the CIA. Infiltration is a time tested tool of the American empire, but in our times it has been perfected to be even more subtle. You need not pay people to become CIA agents any longer, all that is needed is the cultural and ideological conditioning of a national elite to believe in whiteness. All that is Western must appear to be good. A kind of desperation and suicidal tendency among the elite then makes possible the orchestration of anti-government movements. The lack of clarity on what will take its place once the state and government falls makes it easy for American backed forces to fill in the void and undo the gains of the anticolonial struggles fought the world over. The Modi government’s actions show that they do not think this process can ever take place in India. They are trying to ride two horses going in opposite directions -- claiming to be pragmatically for their own ‘national interest’ while avoiding any confrontation with the West. Even in a time when Trump’s actions leave no room for vacillation, they have not made any statements defending self determination or national sovereignty in the case of Palestine, Venezuela, Iran or Bangladesh. We are left with no friends on the world stage as we try to play both sides on all world issues. We cannot afford to be cowardly in this time of global change. We in India need to understand that, seen without its clothing of liberal multiculturalism, the white ruling elite of America consider the darker world subhuman. At best they tolerate your participation in their world system to ensure its stability, an exchange is now crumbling as they lose the support of the American people. No amount of appeasement will get you unconditional support from the American elite, who cares only for its own survival. For the American elite, even a world destroyed by nuclear war is better than a world without them at its center. India’s strength lies in a principled foreign policy whose template was set by the non-aligned movement. The non-aligned movement was an extension of our freedom struggle and drew upon the Gandhian ideal of satyagraha. We need to go back to the principled positions on world events taken on by Nehru and Indira Gandhi. We must recognize the ways in which Indira Gandhi extended the policy of non-alignment with the Indo-Soviet treaty, her involvement in Bangladesh and her close friendship with the leaders of Afro-Asia. We in India have something to defend: a tradition of fighting for human freedom, and struggling to uphold the human and civilizational principles of peace, truth and justice. Nandita Chaturvedi is an editor of Vishwabandhu Journal.
by Meghna Chandra  In the early hours of January 3rd, 2026, the United States government abducted the democratically elected leader of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores. Later that morning, the White House Twitter posted a video of Maduro blindfolded, ears plugged, handcuffed. In the background, Notorious B.I.G.’s “Hypnotize” loops, and Trump struts down a White House Corridor, smirking. The White House believes they signal the United States’ strength and virility. Like rapists, they believe that the ability to steal through violence shows power. James Baldwin diagnosed what we are witnessing as sexual psychosis. White American masculinity manifests as violence and domination, masking deep insecurity. Trump’s abduction of Maduro does not show the Empire’s strength, but its profound weakness and existential terror. The United States empire has many reasons to be afraid. The world is profoundly different from the one in which the Monroe Doctrine operated in the 19th and 20th centuries. Internally, the country is on the brink of civil war, with the ongoing violence in America’s cities between Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and protestors. After decades of deindustrialization, austerity, and war, the American public no longer believes in American institutions. The ruling elite have failed to build consensus for war and empire among the American people. Internationally BRICS nations led by India, Russia and China have increased their share of the world economy to over 40%. China has lifted its masses out of poverty without slavery and genocide, and every day surpasses the West with technological, economic, and social advances. BRICS institutions offer a hope of participatory democracy and a multipolar world, a true alternative to neocolonial domination. Most importantly, nobody, domestically or internationally, believes that the capture of Maduro has anything to do with narco terrorism. Everyone knows it has everything to do with control over Venezuela’s massive oil reserves. As Maduro said in an interview with the former President of Ecuador last September, "They cannot say that Maduro has weapons of mass destruction [as they did with Saddam Hussein]... Nobody would believe them. So they bring out Hollywood style narratives where Maduro is the bad guy of the movie and the good guys are them. Then they are going to send in their army. The fair skinned, blonde, strapping good guys, come to find the Latino, the bad guy. But the truth of the movie, people know, is that… the bad guy is the one who writes the script...” Hugo Chavez and the Significance of the Bolivarian Revolution Maduro is the successor to the Revolutionary Bolivarian Movement, a process started by Hugo Chavez in 1999. Hugo Chavez was born in 1954 and grew up in a poor family of African, Indigenous, and European descent. He joined the military at age 17 and became conscious of the army’s oppression of the Venezuelan masses and the corruption of the two party system. In 1989, he vowed never to turn his guns on his own people after the country’s ruling elite deployed him to shoot civilians protesting IMF shock therapy. Chavez led a coup attempt in 1992, after which he was imprisoned for two years. While in prison he studied history and philosophy, especially the works of Simon Bolivar and Fidel Castro. He also studied the French Revolution’s ideal of revolutionary constituent power, and became convinced that Venezuela must evolve its democracy. He emerged from prison with a clear sense of ideology, history, and human nature. Chavez launched the Fifth Republic movement in July 1997 and ran for president in 1998. He ran on a platform of redistribution and participatory democracy. Despite being silenced on TV, radio, and print media, Chavez and his party won in a landslide with overwhelming support from the poor, who were 80% of the population. The Fifth Republic Movement ratified a new constitution in 1999. This new constitution guaranteed the right to life, work, learning, education, social justice and equality. It enshrined free education, free health care, access to a clean environment, rights of minorities, and more. It introduced mechanisms for participatory democracy including referenda to recall elected officials and repeal laws, citizen initiatives to propose new legislation, and public consultations. As Chavez said, “This project of transformation means that, little by little, people who have been excluded will have access to posts and become empowered. This is true democracy, extending far beyond formal political democracy that limits choice to whether or not a particular governor should be elected.” Much to the horror of the West, the new constitution affirmed state sovereignty over national resources. The government halted the privatization of PDVSA, the nation’s oil industry, and directed its revenue to social welfare. With the help of the Cuban government, the Revolutionary government implemented Bolivarian Missions to expand access to food, housing, healthcare, and education. Chavez’s government banned enrollment fees and shoes as a requirement to enter public schools. Hundreds of thousands of children turned up for school and the army repurposed its barracks for their education. Chavez implemented Plan Bolivar to turn the Constitutional Army into a people’s army. Soldiers went to the country’s poorest sectors to repair food, build local markets, and provide food. Beyond a new form of government, the people participating in the Bolivarian revolution gained a new sense of self. The Fifth Republic Movement gave the Venezuelan people a pride in their shared history and humanity. In a country dominated by a white skinned elite, Chavez proudly pointed out his African and Indigenous features. He recognized the elite’s hatred towards him as racist anger that someone with his curly hair and large lips dared assume the reins of history. Chavez identified Venezuela with the Bandung spirit of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, rather than with Spain and the United States. Chavez was inspired by the Cuban Revolution and mentored by Fidel Castro, whom he said was like a father and a brother to him. Chavez and Fidel established a relationship of warmth and fraternity among the two nations. Cuban doctors, nurses, and teachers contributed to the Fifth Republic Movement’s welfare programs. Chavez defended Cuba and Fidel at the Summit of the Americas and refused Washington’s directives to isolate Cuba. The imperialist media tried to smear Chavez by disseminating stories about his relationship with Fidel, but it only made him more popular. The country’s ruling elite had enough. On April 11, 2002, with the blessings of the Bush administration, opposition politicians called for a march on Miraflores Palace. The elite-owned media broadcast propaganda that the government and Chavez supporters shot at marchers, when the opposite was true. The military high command demanded Chavez’s resignation, which he refused to give. The coup government arrested Chavez and took him to an undisclosed location. The Venezuelan people stopped the coup in its tracks within days. The people of Caracas mobilized on the streets in protest of the unconstitutional and illegal takeover. The palace guards recaptured the building and reinstated Chavez’s ministers. Rank and file soldiers found out Chavez’s location and brought him back as a hero. The extreme right wing tried to destabilize the Bolivarian Movement through oil strikes, recall referendums, and propaganda. Chavez fought back through his program on state owned media “Alo Presidente” in which he addressed the nation, defended the revolution, and gave people a chance to call in and speak to him directly. The Bolivarian Movement endures through Chavez’s suspicious death in 2013. The Bolivarian Movement’s significance is that it is at the vanguard of the current world order. Twenty five years before the BRICS Kazan declaration, it rejected the idea that a nation must submit to the Western model of privatization, austerity, and debt. It centered the poor and marginalized in the fight for development and against neocolonialism. It transcended Western liberal democracy through new forms of participatory rule. It defeated a white, western-trained, technocratic upper class. It promoted a new world order based on sovereignty and respect for all peoples. Maduro Inherits the Revolution Nicolas Maduro Moros, a busdriver and trade unionist, inherited the Fifth Republic Movement. Maduro continued Chavez’s legacy of uncompromising truth telling. He strengthened principled ties with China, Russia and Iran. He fought gangs and drug trafficking that the US DEA claims to be concerned about. In his last interview before his abduction, he explained that he sees himself not as a sole decision maker, but an interpreter of popular power. Maduro is one of the most courageous voices of the multipolar world. At the 2024 BRICS summit, he proposed bold measures for global economic and political reform. He called for a new international monetary system through the BRICS Development Bank and a basket of currencies to end American dollar hegemony. Maduro made a clear and undeniable case that Zionism and Imperialism undermine humanity’s aspiration for a peaceful world order. He recognized the impotence and obsolescence of the current UN system which had failed to protect the people of Gaza, and envisioned a new system arising from the multipolar world. In his words: “...everytime a precision missile falls on a residential building in Gaza and kills men, women, and children, every time a missile falls on Beirut or on Southern Lebanon those missiles set fire to the UN system and destroy it. Where is the UN International Criminal Court or was it created only to persecute the countries of the Global South? Where is the UN justice system? Only to prepare documents, communiques? Are the lives of Palestinian children worthless? Let us be loud. Let us seek a practical, audacious plan to revitalize the UN system which is in agony in the face of the rise of the Nazi and fascist movements at this painful stage in history. A new world is possible. We believe that a new world is already emerging. BRICS is the epicenter of the birth and historical emergence of this new world. A world with deeply human values and principles.” Finally, Maduro prophesied that the US empire’s response to the economic, military, technological, scientific, and cultural rise of the Global South would be war. This war would be waged to force American political, economic, cultural, and military hegemony on the world. Maduro said that in fact, World War III has already begun. Faith in the Future and Freedom from Fear This abduction of Maduro, among other events, has shattered all illusions of international law and the so-called rules based order. Even white countries who prospered under Pax Americana know the game is up. As Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said recently, “If great powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from transactionalism will become harder to replicate.” Now that the mirror of white supremacy has cracked and no one, any longer, anywhere, aspires to the empire’s standards, the last weapon of the American Empire is violence and fear. How the world responds to these tactics will decide the future. Cuba provides an example. Thirty two Cubans, members of Maduro’s personal security detail, died alongside dozens of Venezuelans in the attack against Maduro and Venezuela. They came to Venezuela inspired by friendship, solidarity, and cooperation for a united America in the spirit of Simon Bolivar and Jose Marti. They persisted under bullets and enemy drones and against soldiers overprotected by planes, helicopters, and intentional blackouts. In light of this attack and Trump’s threats, the Cuban people have vowed that they will stay united. Instead of running from aggression, they will meet it head on. As Cuban President Miguel Diaz Canal said, “They would have to kidnap millions or wipe us off the map, and even then, the ghost of this small archipelago, which they had to pulverize because they couldn’t subdue it, would haunt them forever. No, imperialists, we are not afraid of you at all. And, as Fidel said, we don’t like being threatened. You will not intimidate us.” The multipolar order stands upon the shoulders of the individuals and nations who refused to be afraid. Their sacrifices made democracy real because they proved that the darker nations would not consent to be slaves. They forged a new language and survived the last white country the world will ever see. Meghna Chandra is a member of the Saturday Free School for Philosophy and Black Liberation, and a peace activist based in Chicago.
by Avijit Banerjee.  China as an ancient civilization had contact with many regions and countries of the world. The cultural relation between India and China can be traced back to more than 2000 years ago. The close contacts between the two countries were extremely fruitful in the dissemination of Indian culture in China. There are numerous references to China in ancient Indian texts like the Mahabharata. Buddhism was a major force in connecting the two countries at that time. When Buddhism declined in India the two became culturally disconnected from each other in many ways. Political developments in the nineteenth century further prevented close intercourse between the two countries. The old friendship was not resumed until 1924 when the Indian Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore visited China. Clearly, the award of the Nobel Prize to Rabindranath Tagore in 1913 was not only a turning point in the career of the poet, but it was also a reassertion of dignity for both India as well as Asia. Tagore went to China at the invitation of the Lecturer Association of Peiping (earlier name of Peking). During the visit, many Chinese scholars and intellectuals introduced and welcomed Tagore’s arrival in various forms. Many of Tagore’s works were translated and published during this period. From April 12 to May 30, 1924, Tagore delivered speeches on Indian culture and civilization in places such as Shanghai, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Jinan, Beijing, Taiyuan and Hankou. People from the political, ideological, literary and artistic circles were very much influenced by Tagore and his ideas, and a large number of news items and comments were published in newspapers and periodicals. Tagore was a visionary, always forward-looking. During his visit, he sought to promote the cause of China–India understanding, envisioning the essence of India and China relations to a higher platform of civilizational leadership and fraternal partnership. He emphasized that together they comprised 40% of humanity. He said: “My friends, I have come to ask you to re-open the channel of communion which I hope is still there; for though overgrown with weeds of oblivion its lines can still be traced. I shall consider myself fortunate if, through this visit, China comes nearer to India and India to China—for no political or commercial purpose but for disinterested human love and for nothing else”. Tagore not only wanted India and China to take pride in their rich heritage and draw from their pasts to build their future of friendly contacts, but he was also a forerunner envisioning a globalized world community. His idea of building institutions based on such ideals resulted in the founding of Visva-Bharati University at Santiniketan in 1921. The university was truly international in its philosophy, goals and curriculum. As he said in China in 1924: “Our institution of Visva-Bharati represents this idea of cooperation, of the spiritual unity of man. And I ask you, my brothers and sisters, to take part in building it, you who still have men among you mindful of the bond of love once established between our two peoples of the old”. In Tagore’s view, the cooperation between Indian and Chinese civilizations was related to the future development of both countries as well as of Asia and the world at large. He thus sought to revive and strengthen historic relationships between the people of both countries. His global vision and sustained endeavour helped establish the Department of Chinese Language and Culture (Cheena Bhavana) in 1937, the only one of its kind in India and the subcontinent during that time. After his successful tour of China, cultural interaction between the two countries gained substantial development both in dimension and depth. A number of people in China related to art and literature gained interest and Beijing University introduced Indian history, philosophy and language in its curriculum. Later, many Chinese scholars and students started visiting India to pursue research here. These scholars included Tan Yun-Shan, Xu Zhimo, Xu Dishan, Xu Beihong, Tao Xingzhi and Zhang Daqia. On his return from China Tagore started the programme of Chinese studies in Visva-Bharati in 1926 with the help of the French scholar Sylvain Lévi and a Chinese scholar, Linwo Jiang. When Tan Yun-Shan came to Santiniketan in the year 1928, he worked tirelessly to set up a research programme of Chinese studies. Such efforts crystallized in the Cheena Bhavana in 1937 with the following objectives: i. To conduct research studies in Indian and Chinese learning ii. To promote the interchange of Indian and Chinese cultures iii. To cultivate friendship and fraternity between the two nations of India and China iv. To join and unite the people of India and China v. To promote jointly, universal peace and harmony of humanity vi. To help build up “The Great Unity” of the world Tagore presided over the inaugural ceremony of the establishment of Cheena Bhavana with great joy because his vision of a cultural renewal between the two nations had been translated into reality, and Cheena Bhavana was the living symbol of this reality. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru sent his daughter, Indira, to represent him at the opening ceremony of Cheena Bhavana. Cheena Bhavana in the Initial Phase In its initial phase, Cheena Bhavana offered some certificate and diploma courses. It was primarily a research institution providing facilities for Chinese scholars to study Indian culture, philosophy, regional languages, and for Indian scholars to study Chinese culture and history. Cheena Bhavana also paid special attention to Buddhist studies including the study of Buddhist scriptures and translation work. The institution attracted a good number of students and scholars, particularly from China and various parts of India, and also from almost all Asian countries as well as Africa, Europe, and America. During this period, the department started the publication of the Sino-Indian Journal. Many distinguished personalities and patrons such as Wu Xiaoling, Shi Zhen, Chiang Kai-shek, Soong Mei-Ling, and Zhou Enlai greatly enriched the institution with their donations for financial support. During his stay at Santiniketan, Xu Zhimo forged a profound friendship with Tagore. Wu Xiaoling, an expert in Chinese classical literature and Sanskrit, came to India in 1942 and joined Cheena Bhavan as a professor. His wife, Shi Zhen, was a Chinese translator and well-versed in Bengali language. In 1942, she enrolled in Rabindra Bhavan as a graduate student and studied the works of Rabindranath Tagore and other Bengali literature. In 1942, Chiang Kai-shek and his wife, Soong Mei-Ling, visited India. During this visit, they visited Visva-Bharati and donated Rs 50,000 to the university and Rs 30,000 and many rare and precious texts to Cheena Bhavan. When in 1957, the first Premier of the People’s Republic of China, Zhou Enlai, visited India, he visited Cheena Bhavan. Here, he presented several books on Chinese literature and donated 60,000 rupees for Tagore’s memorial. Other notable personalities such as Wu Bei-Hui, Sisir Kumar Ghosh and Chang Renxia were associated with Cheena Bhavan. Their support and contribution in the development of the institution were remarkable. To be sure, the period between 1937 and 1970 is regarded as the golden period for academic activities in Cheena Bhavana. Various language courses besides Chinese, such as Tibetan and Sanskrit, thrived. Significant publications, lectures and many scholarships provided for students to study and pursue research on China followed the academic ideals of Cheena Bhavana. Buddhism, India–China relations, history of China, Chinese art and comparative studies constituted some of the important research areas. Such studies became the nucleus of China studies research in India. Contribution of Some Renowned Scholars of Cheena Bhavana in the India–China Academic and Cultural Interaction Besides the above, a scholar who made a significant contribution to Sino-Indian studies was P. C. Bagchi. He was associated with Cheena Bhavana for two years, from 1945 to 1947, as professor and as Director of Research Centre in Visva-Bharati. He was engaged in the study of Buddhism and also went to teach Indology in China. He knew ancient Chinese, Sanskrit, Tibetan, Nepalese and Central Asian languages. He was also the earliest author to write a special historical survey of India–China contacts. The book titled India and China: A Thousand Years of Cultural Relations provides information about India and China’s ageless affinity. He gave a very scholarly and comprehensive survey of this phase of India–China relations. Undoubtedly P. C. Bagchi’s contributions lent zeal to understand the legacy of the multifaceted Chinese heritage and its importance to Indian history. Some of the other renowned scholars associated with Cheena Bhavana were Pandit Vidusekhara Sastri, P. V. Bapat, V. V. Gokhale, Sujit Kumar Mukhopadhyaya, Santi Bhikksu Sastri, N. Aiyaswami Sastri, and Prahlad Pradhan. Younger scholars included Krishna Kinker Sinha, Amitendranath Tagore, Satiranjan Sen, K. Venkataramanan and V. G. Nair. Translation of a number of Jataka stories from the Chinese Tripitaka by Amitendranath Tagore, a chapter of the Vinaya of the Dharmaguptaka school from its Chinese translation by Prahlad Pradhan, translation of the Chinese version of a Dhyana text attributed to Kumarajiva by Sujit Mukherjea, translation from Chinese of a lost Sanskrit work called Arthavargiya-sutra by P. V. Bapat and a comparative study of the different versions of the Sigalovadasuttanta, a Buddhist text, by Rev. Pannasiri were some of the notable works. Pa Chow, a Chinese scholar at Cheena Bhavana, made a comparative study of the existing Sanskrit version of the Avadanasataka and its ancient Chinese translation and collected important materials which shed light on the original version of the text. Krishna Kinker Sinha, a scholar of Chinese studies, joined Cheena Bhavana in 1942. He learned the Chinese language and studied Chinese classical texts under Tan Yun-Shan. Sinha was later appointed as the first Indian Professor of Hindi and Indian Culture at the Oriental College in Yunnan, China, and became the first Indian professor to teach Hindi in China before India’s independence. Sinha also did a number of translation works from Chinese into Hindi such as the translation of Gandhi and China by Tan Yun-Shan, San-Min-Chu-I by Sun Yat-sen, and China’s Destiny by Marshal Chiang. It may be mentioned that from 1937 till his retirement in 1970, Tan Yun-Shan tirelessly led Cheena Bhavana and during this period the works of the above scholars played a remarkable role in highlighting India–China cultural interaction and Buddhism’s pivotal role in the history of cultural connectivity of the world. India–China Cultural and Educational Exchange with Cheena Bhavana Leading the Way After its establishment in 1937, Cheena Bhavana witnessed a significant number of visits by eminent persons besides official and private scholars. Mahatma Gandhi, Sarojini Naidu, Rajendra Prasad, S. Radhakrishnan, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad visited Cheena Bhavana once or more. Jawaharlal Nehru took a special interest in Cheena Bhavana whenever he visited Santiniketan. The famous Chinese artist Xu Beihong came to Santiniketan in 1939 and was associated with Cheena Bhavana for about a year as Visiting Professor of Chinese Arts. Prior to this, in 1940, there was the goodwill mission of Dai Jitao, President of the Examination Yuan of the Nationalist government. He wrote an essay in Chinese tracing the historical and cultural amicable relations between India and China and praying for its renewal. This document, engraved on a plaque, was installed on a wall in Cheena Bhavana. The first Chinese Buddhist Mission to India, led by Rev. Tai Xu, visited Santiniketan and spent a week as a guest in Cheena Bhavana. His prominent disciple, Grand Master Fa-Fang, joined as a Research Fellow in Indian Buddhism in 1942. During his stay at Santiniketan, she studied Pali, Sanskrit and English. In 1945, she went to Ceylon to study further and returned to Santiniketan in 1946 at the invitation of Tan Yun-Shan and became a Lecturer in Chinese Buddhism. Master Fa-Fang contributed immensely to strengthening Sino-Indian cultural exchange. Some of the books that he authored were Buddhist Outlook on Life, The Order of a Buddhist and Culture of India. Such a contribution spanning over several decades by scholars and statesmen on both sides was significant in the history of India–China relations in modern times. After the unfortunate India–China border conflict of 1962, there was a bad phase in India–China educational and cultural exchanges, and Cheena Bhavana was also affected by this turn of events. As a result, many activities were stopped or became slow, and even the number of students and scholars joining Cheena Bhavana dropped. After the epoch-making visit of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to China in 1988, there was renewed interest in India–China educational and cultural exchanges. In the 1990s, some of the activities resumed. Recent Development in Cheena Bhavana Scholars who visited Cheena Bhavana in recent years, though for shorter periods, have contributed greatly to re-fostering academic exchange and friendship between India and China. Among them, Geng Yinzeng, Du Weiming, Zhou Fucheng, Lin Chengjie, Charles Willemen, Dong Youchen and Bai Kaiyuan deserve special mention. Besides them, Wang Lipin and Wu Ou of the Ancient Archives Study Centre of Beijing University came to Cheena Bhavana in January 2009 for two months to help catalogue ancient books preserved in the library of Cheena Bhavana. Cheena Bhavana has also sought academic and cultural cooperation between Visva-Bharati and Chinese universities. In July 2011, Visva-Bharati University and Yunnan University signed a Memorandum of Understanding. Under this programme, about 500 students from both universities have already visited each other’s institute. In November 2014, Xi Jinping conferred upon Cheena Bhavana the “Five Principles of Peaceful Co-Existence Award” for its contribution in upholding the five principles of peaceful coexistence, strengthening people-to-people friendship and promoting world peace and development. In November 2016, the Cheena Bhavana Library signed a Memorandum of Agreement with Shanghai Library. This agreement between the two libraries possesses important significance for India–China educational exchanges. Visva-Bharati University also signed an agreement with Yunnan Minzu University, Kunming, in December 2016, intended to uphold the academic objectives of each institution and promote better understanding between the faculty and students of each institution. In 2017, Cheena Bhavana signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Peking University that facilitates five to seven students to pursue a one-semester course in China every year. In addition, regular organization of Teacher’s Training Courses that draw upon eminent faculty from Beijing University to deliver lectures has provided scope for exchange of knowledge and interaction for Indian teachers and researchers. Conclusion The establishment of Cheena Bhavana is indeed a significant event in the history of India–China educational and cultural exchange. Since its foundation, Cheena Bhavana has provided a stable platform of knowledge building, which in turn has helped strengthen India–China relations in various fields. It has attracted a wide range of scholars and students. As an integral part of Visva-Bharati, Cheena Bhavana is destined to play a significant role in fostering India–China cultural relations and in promoting peace, harmony, mutual friendship and better understanding through regular scholarly exchanges and cultural and educational interactions. References
Dr. Avijit Banerjee is Professor & Head of the Department of Chinese Language & Culture (Cheena Bhavana) Visva-Bharati University.
|
RSS Feed