TM Krishna on Vande Mataram, National Symbols and the Crisis of Indian Democracy

OutlookIndia

In this TM Krishna latest interview with Outlook’s Ashlin Mathew, the Carnatic musician, thinker and author reflects on nationalism in Indian cinema and politics, the crisis of Indian democracy, and the deeper meaning of India’s national symbols.   In conversation with Outlook’s Ashlin Mathew, this TM Krishna book discussion examines the Vande Mataram controversy, the Jan Gan Man meaning debate, and the tension between patriotism vs dissent in India. Krishna explains why Vande Mataram cannot be separated from its literary and historical context, why the national anthem debate in India remains relevant, and how the Satyameva Jayate significance must be understood beyond slogans.   The discussion also explores the Indian national symbols debate, including the Preamble of Indian Constitution discussion, the Ashokan Lion Capital meaning, and the ethical imagination behind the Ashoka Chakra. Krishna addresses the sedition law in India debate, preventive detention in India, and the growing concerns around majoritarianism in India.   At a time of polarisation, the conversation turns to freedom of speech in India and the crisis of Indian democracy, asking whether civic listening and ethical reflection can reshape public life.   This is a wide-ranging, reflective dialogue on democracy, dissent and the meaning of belonging.   Reporter: Ashlin Mathew  Camera: Suresh Pandey  Editor: Sudhanshu   #Democracy #TamilNadu #VandeMataram #JanaGanaMana   About Outlook Magazine   Outlook Magazine brings sharp, independent journalism to the conversations shaping India and the world. From politics and culture to society, media, and ideas, Outlook goes beyond headlines to unpack context, challenge power, and question dominant narratives.   On this channel, Outlook Magazine Explains breaking news, emerging debates, and cultural shifts through opinion-led explainers, reported analysis, and thoughtful storytelling. Our videos cut through noise and misinformation to examine how language, ideology, and politics shape everyday life—online and offline.   Subscribe to Outlook Magazine for credible journalism, critical perspectives, and conversations that matter.   #OutlookMagazine #DeepDiveWithOutlook #OutlookExplains #OutlookOpinion #OutlookIndia #Outlook #IndiaNews   Follow us:  Website: https://www.outlookindia.com/  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Outlookindia  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/outlookindia/  X: https://twitter.com/Outlookindia  Whatsapp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaNrF3v0AgWLA6OnJH0R  Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@OutlookMagazine  Dailymotion: https://www.dailymotion.com/outlookindia

Transcript

00:00I've heard tunes of Vande Mataram which are first two verses, one verse, four verses. Four verses

00:06just don't work as a song. Tagore tried saying that it's accidental connection with Anandamata.

00:12That's a phrase Tagore used. It's just incorrect because you can't say it's accidental because

00:18the fact is Bankim used the song as an important cog in that entire novel. Now and that novel

00:28is not just anti-government or whatever. It is anti-Muslim. There's no doubt about it.

00:45We have with us TM Krishna, Carnatic music vocalist, thinker and author, a man who cannot be put in a box.

00:52He has consistently through his books, music and speeches aimed to dismantle hierarchical

00:58structures within the music landscape as it marginalizes and excludes non-Brahmin communities

01:05from musical performances. He has often questioned the politics of art and his recent book,

01:11We the People of India, Decoding India Symbols is about understanding the concept of democracy

01:18through tangible visible symbols of the Indian Republic. So let's begin. We shall begin with the

01:24most obvious question. Why a book on the symbols of the nation? Did the changing notion of the

01:30symbols play a role? I guess it's a good question. You know, I think many things that came together at

01:38a certain moment. I think one is the fact that I think many of us feel great amount of sadness and

01:49discomfort. It's not the anger or discomfort. For me, it's, it's actually, it used to be that it's

01:54turned into sadness. And it does something to the bottom of my stomach in the mornings.

02:01By not, it's not about what politicians are saying to me. It's about what even common people are saying.

02:06You know, it's about even the tone of the discourse, some fundamental, even like

02:11human values is just thrown out of the window. So, I mean, it's been disturbing. Very, so it's very

02:20personal, many levels. I think that's, that's one thread, which is definitely watching yourself and

02:26what's around you. The other thing is also the fact that, you know, I started singing all the verses of

02:33Janakadamana some years ago. I know other people did it after that. But I started seeing that, I was

02:40profoundly moved, right? Especially that one line, where he talks about all the religions, the Buddhists,

02:48the Jainas, the Christians, the Muslims, right? And, and also, if you look, the other verse where he talks

02:54about the fact that, that the country is in darkness, and will the sun rise from the eastern hills, you know?

03:01So, I think it had a great emotional impact on me. So, I started thinking about the song.

03:07And not historically, but even the song, you know, what is it, what do I feel? And I say, I'm Indian,

03:12what does it mean? You know, does it, is it just something that's constructed in my head from childhood?

03:17Or does it have value? You know, I think these kinds of questions were also happening. And the third

03:22layer is what you also mentioned, is that how you see on an everyday basis, some of these very important

03:30symbols have been manipulated, twisted, lies added upon them, transformed into representing something

03:40that is not just different, also violent at levels, right? So, all this, I think, came together. And

03:48when I said, you know, why don't I think about these symbols? And there's one moment, I think,

03:54which was a trigger. I gave a talk on Janaganamana, right? I think it was at KLF some years ago. And

04:04at the talk, just intuitively, I called Janaganamana a protest song. That words stuck with me. So,

04:14I can explain why I called the protest song, I'll come to that. And, but I said, you know, but what does

04:19it mean? I've said this. So, then I started investigating, can the anthem be a protest song,

04:25you know? So, all these questions. So, I think it came, that moment was the moment of the catalyst.

04:32And I said, okay, I think I need to, I already thought it's going to be five essays of 5,000 words

04:35each. Yes, you mentioned that in the beginning. But it did not happen. It went much bigger than what it

04:41made massage. So, that's how I think I finally landed up going into archives and spending years and years and

04:48years trying to find meaning. And also trying to see what we have lost and trying to see whether

04:53we also have to be reimagined. It's not just about being, you know, romantic about the past. It's also

05:00about us taking the effort of reimagining ourselves in the present. So, which is why this book is a

05:06conversation in many ways of the past and the present. You have history coming, you have a

05:10contemporary discourse coming. Because I am writing from the present situation. I'm not writing as a

05:14historian. I'm writing as a person who's observing something and trying to go to the past and make

05:20sense and find some pathway. Is there any way that the symbols of the nation can be become inclusive

05:29and not exclusive like how some of the symbols have? I think they definitely can. I think one thing

05:34I can definitely say is none of the symbols, when they were envisaged, were envisaged as exclusive

05:40domains. You just have to say that. You know, you can debate many other aspects, which is fine. But I

05:46think the spirit behind every symbol was how can this symbol encompass the entire landscape that we

05:54were making, which we called India. How can it in a way be a visual and aural, a lyrical representation

06:05of all the people that we are? And therefore the intention behind the symbols itself, that was that

06:13we in be the people, that it is the larger we. And we have to find a way in which the values that these

06:21symbols propagate or suggest is something that everybody needs to kind of embrace or learn to

06:28embrace. So, the other thing we forget, the symbols, many of them also had historical significance. They were

06:34reimagined when they were made out of symbols. It was not like they just took something from Ashoka

06:39Peel and said, this is what Ashoka thought of it, this is what, no. It was really, there was a new

06:43narrative. And that's important. That's a very, very, very important thing that was done. Not just

06:51strategic, but also very focused on the fact that we're building a new nation. So, that new imagination

06:58that was given to be a symbol is also a fascinating thing to explore.

07:02You mentioned about the prevention of insults to the National Honours Act. Is it a law that is

07:08required? Is it wrong to target the symbols of the state when people are angry with the state?

07:13I think that law has no place in our democracy. I'm very clear about it. I think in the book,

07:19there are two opinions that are present. But I don't believe, which is why I bring that whole,

07:26that whole Periyar debate is there. And I think Anna's speech in that

07:31legislature assembly is a brilliant speech. When Periyar threatens to burn the constitution.

07:37And he says, oh my God, finally. Then Tamraj explains it. No, Anna explains it. So, the whole

07:44issue is, imagine Tamil Nadu is a state that actually opened that whole thing of having this

07:49prevention of insults to, you know, Indian symbols or whatever. So, and he talks about,

07:54you know, why is he doing it? Does he hate the constitution? No. Does he? No, he's trying to

08:00wake you up and say, have you done right? Have we done right? So, I very strongly believe that that

08:07act has no place in our democracy. I think when you, and also remember you, this whole differentiation

08:16between the state and the nation is a theoretical difference, right? For an everyday person, the two

08:22things are the same. So, we can debate in some academic seminar saying the state and nation are

08:27different ideas, all that we can debate. But if you ask a citizen, there's no difference. Government,

08:32state, nation are all synonymous. Yes. Right? So, when I want to, when I'm angry with something,

08:40I do target the symbol of the state. To me, it's the same as a nation, right? So, then if I, if I,

08:47whether it's the flag or anything, if I say, no, I want to show my anger towards that, I don't believe

08:53that we should be stopped from doing that. I don't believe that. I don't believe that has room in a

08:57democracy. Absolutely. You mentioned very briefly about sedition in that area, but you don't elaborate

09:03on it. Yeah, because that's a huge… Yes. So, do you want to say something about… I mean, it's a no-brainer

09:08for me. Same. Sedition is ridiculous. It's beyond ridiculous. And I also say in the book that preventive

09:16detention has no place in our constitution. And I ask the question and I say that I know when it came

09:23into the council of the assembly, Ambedkar who was also for it. Didi Krishmachari was also who suggested

09:29a very dangerous amendment that we still have there. And I don't believe it should preventive

09:36detention has a place because now we are complaining about UAPA, we have complained about POTA,

09:41but none of this would be impossible if preventive detention… Imagine, you know,

09:46in our fundamental rights, just think of it conceptually. This is not a reasonable restriction.

09:52It is not. In our fundamental rights, we have a provision to put away somebody on preventive

09:58detention for months. How is this… How does this make sense? As a citizen, this just doesn't make

10:06sense. So, I don't believe any of this has space. Yeah, I know people will say, you know, we have

10:11situations of terrorism, the bogey of national security. But I think if you want certain specific

10:19laws for these kinds of specific categories, they have to be very sharp, specific and, you know,

10:26very narrowly defined aspects. Right now, we just allowed things to happen and just look at the

10:33conviction rate in, for example, UAPA. I mean, it's negligible. It's nothing, right?

10:392%. Exactly. 2.2% or something like that. So, there's no place for any of this in our democracy.

10:44Yes. The Ashoka line was chosen for a reason. Dharma seemed to be at the heart of that choice.

10:51Has it been emptied of ethical meaning and reduced to a marker of authority and power?

10:57It's been completely maligned and manipulated. Those are the words I have used.

11:05In the new parliament with the new statue. Absolutely. I have no doubts about it. And I think it's done

11:09even before the new statue. The statue is the reflection of what has already happened.

11:17Right? Without doubt, it's the other way around. So, yeah, I don't think, and this, you know,

11:24those lions in our original are lions of compassion. They're lions overseeing the land to make sure there's

11:33justice for everybody, that everybody is cared for. And in Buddhist mythology or religion, those lions

11:42are the Buddha. They are the Sankhyoni. So, the concept of those lions are very different. Actually,

11:51we made our lions closer to colonial lions. Our lions today resemble the lions that the Indian

12:00public saw when they had the colonial rule or when they had the East in their company. Lions,

12:07which are there to show that I am more powerful than anybody else. And imagine having those lions

12:13on the parliament. The irony, I don't know how it's not seen. The parliament is a representation of the

12:22people. And on that parliament, you put these lions, then where are the people? So, no, those lions,

12:32to me, represent what seems to be the new discourse. And also, you know, it's also a bravado. There's a lot

12:40of this showing off that, you know, the bully is always the weakest person. And what we are seeing

12:50now is bullies. In your book, you mentioned that the easy acceptance of Gandhi and the need for

12:58B.R. Ambedkar to repeatedly prove himself was because of caste. Could you elaborate on that?

13:03So, yeah. So, this was, you know, I went into that debate, very conscious saying that I don't want

13:11to fall into the usual traps. Because I know those arguments, those arguments have been made. And I

13:16think they're very important arguments. But how does one see that? So, one, I think as a person,

13:21there are parts of, as far as the caste argument goes, it's very clear to me that Gandhi's arguments

13:29are a big problem. There's no doubt about it. I mean, for me, it's no good thing. But at the same

13:34time, what is that problem? Is the question. You can look at it in different ways. I know other

13:39scholars have seen it in different ways. But I want to see it. I want to talk about it to try and see

13:45why was Gandhi unable to understand the problem in a situation now. And I think caste was a problem.

13:56His blinder was his caste. And despite his constant need for reflection and awareness,

14:04his caste position made it emotionally impossible for him to recognize the problem of where he was.

14:15Which means he also did not recognize the power of where he was. Which means he was taking all the

14:21attention. He was taking over the discourse. He became the discourse. He was the discourse.

14:28Which means automatically the person who really should have been the voice of the discourse,

14:33Ambedkar, could not be that discourse. Two, stepping back is a very difficult thing for

14:39a person with caste privilege to do. For me, this is all learnings for us. This is how I see it.

14:45You know, on watching this. So, the fact that Gandhi was very easily accepted. You know,

14:54and also, you know, even now you hear this. Think of this. Even now, you would hear somebody say,

15:00despite X being from, say, a privileged caste, see how he is caring towards everybody. These are

15:08statements you hear today in 2026. Now, put that in the position of Gandhi's period. This would have been

15:14power of end. Then Gandhi also is the imagery of a person who is saintly, nearly saintly. So,

15:22imagine the power all this gives Gandhi, right? Which also makes him further blind from this problem.

15:29Interestingly, Tagore warns Gandhi of this in a different situation. When he says everybody is just

15:35turning the chakra, the charka because you're saying it. He's not talking about caste there,

15:40but it's the same problem. He's saying, you think everybody understands why you want to spin the

15:44charka? No. This is being, this is this mass mentality. This in a way also ties to this problem,

15:52which is why I think Gandhi would constantly be appreciated for his progressive positions.

15:58Whereas Ambedkar had to constantly fight and fight and fight and say, no, this is right.

16:07This is not a favor. This is right. This is justice. This is, this is Dhamma, right? So,

16:15this tension is very important for us to see. And which is why I reflected it from this angle,

16:20because I think when people look at it, it's important to see, especially a person like me,

16:25who's with caste privilege, who I am in some way engaged with society. It's constant. It's very

16:32important for me to see the problems in Gandhi's argument. And also sometimes the words Gandhi's

16:36use. We always, he keeps on saying, you know, I have great respect for Ambedkar's intelligence.

16:42He's a brilliant man, blah, blah, blah. But he's a hurt person. He's, he's hurt. Or he can spit on my face.

16:49He'll have to accept. Now, those are all deeply problematic things to say, because that in a way

16:57diminishes that individual to an emotional state, right? The moment you do that to an individual,

17:04then you do not respect that individual's intellect directly, right? And you take away that power. So,

17:12these are all indicators of the problems in Gandhi's discourse. But I think we still have to engage with

17:18that discourse. We have to engage, which is why, and like I said, during that time, neither Gandhi,

17:24neither Ambedkar, ever held back. Which is very good. Which is excellent. The reason why we can have

17:32this debate, because these both didn't hold back. And we can look at it. And it's important for us to,

17:38to look at those, those debates. Currently, there are many jingoistic debates around the 150th year

17:45of Vande Mataram. What would be the best way to look at the song to ensure that it unifies and not divides?

17:52So, you know, Vande Mataram, even last two days, I've been thinking about this. How do I describe it?

17:57I don't know whether to call it two songs or three songs. It's not one song. Okay, it's not one song. So,

18:04simply put, of course, historically, we know that the first two paragraphs, verses rather, were written

18:12between 1872 and 1875, or 74 and 75, depending on how you want to see it. And the rest were written

18:20closer to Andam at publication, which is 1881. But to me, the second verse itself is a problem.

18:27It's everybody says the first two verses, right? Now, first verse, I think, is actually a beautiful

18:33verse. Now, if you have a problem with the idea of, of a feminine mother to a nation, then the first

18:40verse will also be a problem. Say you keep that aside. The first verse is a beautiful description,

18:49right? And it is not, honestly, very different from many other descriptions you hear in Sanskrit,

18:55of a land or people or whatever. The second verse itself is a stutter. Because suddenly,

19:02he's talking about the, the torment that the people are facing. And suddenly, the population count is

19:08suddenly given to you, suddenly say, come rise. There's a whole tone difference. That's stark. Okay.

19:15Then, of course, there's a complete transformation in the third, fourth paragraphs, where it is the,

19:22what you see today as mother goddess with a tiger who is there too. I mean, she transforms very fast.

19:31The last line, interestingly, which I've written in the song, is a complete flip back to the first

19:38two lines. And I think that was a poetic choice. Because if you see the last line of Madde Matram,

19:47it rhymes brilliantly back with the first two lines of Madde Matram. So here, the poet in Bankim,

19:54comes back and realizes he has to go back to the first line. And he brings back the same kind of

20:00softness, even oral softness, Sujalaam, Supalaam. So very, there's a, there's a melodic softness. It almost

20:07comes back in the last line. So how, it is a makeup of so many aspects, right? Which is why it can

20:15never sit together as a song. I've kept on saying, I've heard tunes of Madde Matram, which are first two

20:22verses, one verse, four verses. Four verses just don't work as a song. Okay? They just, the song

20:30collapses, simply put. The first, the only thing that really works for me is the first verse. Even

20:36lyrically, it's cohesive and holds very nicely, beyond which it doesn't. So how does one describe

20:44the song? Secondly, I want to say this again, saying that that song was, or Tagore tried saying,

20:49that it's accidental connection with Andamata. That's a phrase Tagore used. It's just incorrect.

20:58Because you can't say it's accidental. Because the fact is Bankim used the song as an important cog

21:06in the, in that entire novel. Now, and that novel is not just anti-government or whatever,

21:19it is anti-Muslim. There's no doubt about it. And, you know, if you look at the, where the song is sung,

21:28what context they are sung, what are these Hindu sannyasans doing? They're going burning villages.

21:33They are attacking Muslim villages. And these are common people. They are not attacking sepoys or,

21:39you know, people from their, from the king's army. And in fact, the, the whole story ends with, in a very,

21:50very funny note, where there's one kind of a mystical figure who comes in the last scene. And this,

21:59one of the protagonists are saying, you know, what is this? The British are now taken over. I mean,

22:03this will happen. And he actually says, no, the British should take over now. They should come

22:07into governance. At that time, then we will build our education. We will build. So it's almost

22:13acceptance of colonialism in some way at the end. Okay. Now, all this can be placed in context,

22:19etc. But I'm just saying to say, to say this song is not really connected with any of that is

22:27definitely false. The first verse, yes, you could, you could say holds on itself beyond which the song

22:35is a problematic song, is a song that cannot represent India very simply. And, but in this book,

22:43I use Vande Mataram almost metaphorically, because if you see, even the consul assemblies,

22:50very often issues of Vande Mataram being national land, national dress needed, Hindi being the national

22:57language, a kind of a Hindu majoritarian, a cow, sorry, cow slaughter issue, uniform civil code. All these

23:06issues are often coupled together. So it is also shows that Vande Mataram is at the top of this whole

23:14set of values that a certain set of people felt we should propagate. So it is to me, in many ways,

23:23encapsulates multiple parochial sets of ideas, which in my opinion, does not have space in a democratic,

23:33in a Janaganamana, India. Why do you think then they were forced to make it an important song?

23:41So, okay, so we also have to accept historically, during the partition of Bengal, Vande Mataram had a role to play.

23:49It's, it's a fact. Now, but even there, if you read, you know that even at that time, there was tensions.

23:56That it was not among the Muslim, the Hindu community, this song was not equally being celebrated,

24:02right? But there was tension there. Because even in Bengal, there was still Muslim, Hindu tensions

24:09that were happening. But the fact is, Vande Mataram became a kind of a call, along with the image of

24:16Bharat Mata, right? And that kind of catalyst for anti-Megal partition. So that's how it got a voice

24:24that was not just Bengali. I mean, it got translated in numeral languages, Bharatiya translated. He wrote

24:31many songs using the idea of Mother India, which is inspired from Vande Mataram. And Vande Mataram,

24:36not only the song, the slogan, right? So I think the idea of India being a motherland, for example,

24:45is born around that time, right? Before that, you don't see the idea that India had a motherland,

24:52is really there as a nationalistic notion. So it gave birth to the idea of India being a motherland.

25:00So it does have that historical political context. So it could not be given up. And please remember

25:07that the Congress sessions, it became a constant song. It was sung in every Congress session almost,

25:14right? So you had, I know, Vishnudegovar Palluskar, Gandharva Mahavidya, all of them singing on

25:22De Mataram. So Vande Mataram became the predominant musical song that was also being sung through a

25:29period of time. Till then there were other songs, but this became the predominant song. And so it was

25:34very difficult for nationalists to dissociate themselves from the song because they had an emotional

25:40connection with them, which is why I thought, I think it's very mature that in 37, 38, when this

25:47whole controversy happened, and I know people are saying all kinds of nonsensical things about it.

25:52No, it was a very mature and very thoughtful decision saying, yes, we have an emotional connection,

25:59but we also recognize the problem. How does one resolve it? Now, why are they trying to resolve it?

26:04They're trying to resolve it because they're trying to create a country where we can live together. Now,

26:09how can anybody fault such an intention? I don't know how anybody can fault. So they say, okay,

26:14can we do this? Can we just have the first two verses? Those are the ones that anyway, people know,

26:19blah, blah, blah. And they're trying to find a via media, right? At the same time, you see in the

26:26letters that you exchanged, you see, you see that there are a lot of tensions everywhere, that you have

26:31extreme Muslim forces, extreme Hindu forces, all trying to pull in different directions. And now

26:39we are trying to be, and you have people saying, no, no, we can't fault for any trap. Let's find a way,

26:45you know? So it is a complicated political, complicated social and religious kind of a

26:51situation, which I think was handled with great care and nicety to the best of their abilities at that

26:59point in time. In the book, you explore both Janaganamana and Vande Mataram as different ideas of

27:06India. Could you explain? I mean, I kind of did now. But yes, to me, that just became more and more

27:12obvious. But not only with the song, but as I also went and read all the debates, it is very clear that

27:20those, the people who were insistent on Vande Mataram were also insistent on another set of values,

27:26right? Like I always think our directive principles and our duties, those two things in our constitution

27:35sometimes baffles me, honestly. You know, and I say in the book, like directive principles,

27:40you have cow. I mean, it's, of course, hidden under animal husbandry. But the fact is, the fact is,

27:46it is about the cow, right? Or, you know, or uniforms. We forget what kind of arguments Ambedkar made

27:51about or, you know, uniforms, saying that it has to be something that is taken with the community

27:59participating in it. And, you know, and how we go about it. At the same time, we have very sharp

28:04questions asked by the Muslim members of the Consul Assembly saying, whose uniformity are you seeking?

28:10See how relevant that statement is today. You know, whose uniformity? Who is, who is the standard for that

28:17uniformity? And you see what is happening in Uttarakhand and all these places, right? You know

28:22what they are talking about. It's a targeted operation. So, you find all these things along

28:28with this notion of Vande Mataram always. So, this is bluntly put, a Hindu majoritarian idea of India.

28:37Now, I will concede definitely that Abhinandranath's Mother India is, does not give, visually, does not

28:48give me the same sensibility of today's picturization. But the fact is, it became that, okay? And within

28:56that was coupled all these Hindu majoritarian notions, where everybody is allowed, as long as they are

29:04willing to accept the predominance, the originality, the, you know, the first rights of this dominant

29:13set. And also, don't forget that when this Hindu that they are talking about is, I want to say this

29:18also, is a Brahminical Hindu. It is not Hindu in its large sense. Please come to Tamil Nadu. You know,

29:27we have so many sense of Hindus, right? So, even that Hindu is qualified. It is not some university.

29:34Even there, it is a specifically upper caste notion that is built, right? So, that is within which this

29:41entire cow slaughter and all that. And we are seeing what it's doing to India today, right? And then you

29:46have the Janagaramara sensibility of India, which is fascinating. And there I want to add one more thing.

29:54There is one more sensibility, which is Shubhsukha Chayene ki Barkha Varase, which is the Kimbastani version

30:01of Janagaramana translated by Abidhasan for Bose, which is another sensibility of the same Janagaramana.

30:10I think that Janagaramana is the lofty ideals of this possibility. You will hear Shubhsukha Chayene

30:17when you walk the streets here, that the language use has colloquialism to it. It has a certain

30:23everydayness to it. Tagore is slightly more stately, slightly more upper crusty, if I can say that,

30:29right? But the sensibility is still, they talk to each other. They talk to each other. So, I think,

30:36to me, and India would be a combination of both these, not just Janagaramana. Janagaramana and Shubhsukha Chayene.

30:42That's probably the India that we should be, we should be holding. We could argue about it. We

30:49should hold with it. So, that's why they're two very, very different ideas.

30:52Yes. In today's India, can we remain hopeful that a prayer like Satyamev Jayate can happen? Does it have

31:02more relevance than ever? Not in an abstract sense, but in a real... Everyday sense. So, you know, even I

31:08wondered why that motto? It's like, you know, it's like, even I wondered, why you think Satyamev Jayate?

31:14It's a very abstract idea. So, of course, its connotation in the Upanishad is different. So, there Satya comes

31:22from Sat, as in reality, truth. So, it goes into the idea of Maya, you know, the Advaitic explanation

31:29can be very different. So, there Sat Satya is not your everyday Satya, not speaking the truth, as in

31:34you and me. So, in the Upanishad, the Sat means realization of the actual reality, which is…

31:42The universe. No, it is the Advaitic notion. So, the Advaitic notion is more like,

31:47this is all Maya. We live in Maya. And the Advaitic notion is to say, the realization of reality is

31:57the realization of the self. Okay? So, Sat comes from… There, that's how he means. Also, when the

32:03Mundaka Upanishad, where this exists, suppose your Upanishad meant for, you know, mendicants and

32:09rishis and people who are seeking that self-discovery. So, it has a context there. Right? So, but when we

32:16have made it a motto, we are not using it in that context. We are using it in the context of Satya,

32:20as in truth. Truth is victorious. So, I've written this book about a grammatical problem that was

32:26debated. And I'd like to bring that to light to your question. Without going to the technicalities

32:32of grammatical problem, there's a whole debate with Satya-meh-meh-jaya-thyeh, jaya-thyeh or Satya-meh-jaya-thyeh.

32:37And the whole issue was about which is the subject and which is an object, the grammar problem.

32:41But, if you are going to look at it a little differently, and this comes from some scholars,

32:50Patrick Oli will help me out in understanding this, is if you… So, if you say Satya-meh-jaya,

32:55Satya-meh-jaya-thyeh is victorious or… Satya is not material. Right? It's an ideal. How can Satya be victorious?

33:02How can Satya win? If you think of it. Satya cannot win. That person who speaks the truth can win.

33:10Satya-meh-jaya-thyeh. So, if you think of it that way, then it has great value today.

33:17If you think that you are able to adopt the idea of truth, then there is a possible… And victory is

33:22not victory literally. It is not. It means finding the pathway, moving to move forward. It does.

33:30Especially in this world of WhatsApp University. In this world of truth, post-truth, after-truth,

33:36I don't know how many truths there are now. I think it's important that we think of it that way.

33:41It's important that it has a role. And we keep reminding ourselves. Now, it's there on every

33:46letterhead. Every politician is corrupt. You could ask that question. I have no answer to that question.

33:51Not every politician. I'll correct myself. At least many are. But… So, but I think sometimes,

33:59reminding ourselves of these values does have some effect on us. Otherwise, slogans won't matter.

34:06What do slogans matter? They can change people. There's this other beautiful phrase which I

34:14quote in the book. It's from Kamba Ramayana, where when Kamban describes Kosala, the land of Kosala,

34:23he says, it's a place of no lies, so there's no truth. Just think of it. So, truth becomes operative

34:33only if we are filled with lies. If there is no lies, then what are we talking about? Right? So, if you're

34:42able to think in that manner, then I think it is important. But where is it important? And I want to

34:50say that is where education happens. Our classrooms, which is where then I will talk about our history

34:57textbooks. I will talk about what are we teaching our children. Are we teaching our children the truth?

35:04Fact is different, the truth is different. So, are these being placed in schools? And if they are being,

35:12if we can place them in schools, then they have value into society. But if you and I expect suddenly

35:19somebody to see the slogan and say, tomorrow I'm going to reform, it's not going to happen. And that's

35:24not the way to make the change. So, I would say, yes, as idealistic as it may sound. And maybe I'm

35:31idealistic because I'm an artist at some level. It is important sometimes to hold on to certain

35:38idealistic ideas. Because its own practicality can only come from idealism. You can't begin with

35:43practicality. You have to bring in with that idea that seems unreachable. And then say, okay,

35:51it's unreachable. How do I communicate it to you? What do I do in the classroom? Let's start there.

35:56Let's say we can discuss about anything. Let's say we can debate about our history. But we will tell you,

36:01these are the things. We want to debate it. Let's look at different people looking at the same facts.

36:06Then I think Satyama Vijayate has definitely value. Again, Satyama is not winning. Who wins in all this?

36:13We, the people of India, are the ones who will win. Not truth by itself.

36:20Why have you included the preamble to the constitution as one of the symbols?

36:23So, yeah. It's a good question. Even, I think we, I written, I debated it also.

36:28I mean, it's not officially a symbol, right? If you look at it that way. But I keep saying it is,

36:33in a way, a symbol of the constitution. Because it's, it's not, not justiciable. You can't take,

36:38go to court based on what the preamble has said it will give me. So, it is a symbolic of everything

36:44else we have written in the constitution. And I think one of the main reasons that it stayed fresh

36:49in my head, it was CIA protests. But it became a symbol beyond the constitution at some level.

36:56Who would have thought that you will have lawyers and in courts all over, in Shaheen Bagh, everywhere,

37:04read out the preamble, right? And there also, there's a personal, at that point of time, I was

37:11part of the protest. And I started singing the preamble in other languages.

37:17I've sung… You mentioned that. Yes. It should have been…

37:20Exactly. So, I sang it in Malayalam, I sang it in Tamil, I sang it in Karana. Three languages I've sung it.

37:24I've also sung it in Hindi. And that's when they, in fact, they touched me even more, those words.

37:33Right? So, maybe that connection with… So, that symbol of what it did to me, in some way,

37:40was also a reason why I chose it. But I think it has become symbolic of our republic. And the book

37:50kind of recognizes that. India of Gandhi's imagination was an awakening of everyone,

37:57where those in power could be made to understand the unethical nature of their presence,

38:02through non-violent neurons. Where does India of today stand on that scale?

38:06Will we ever reach there? Or are we too far away from that dream to be…

38:12The India of today, I… The India of today is an India of arrogance being legitimized.

38:24It's not just arrogance being displayed. It's arrogance being legitimized. Violence being legitimized.

38:32Abuse being legitimized.

38:36Lies being legitimized. Manipulation being legitimized. I'm using a lot of negative

38:42words here, I know. But that's how I feel, that all this has become normalized today.

38:46And that's definitely not just India. Why Gandhi? It's not India that you and I want.

38:53Right? And, you know, India can't be a country where

39:01just a story of one set of people is constantly told in the manner that they want to and manipulate.

39:08It can't be. Right? So, I think always, what is a healthy society? You always wonder what's a healthy society?

39:15I always think that in society, there should be tension. You know, so say you hold the end of a string,

39:22I hold the end of a string. Both of us are holding it tight. So both of us are like saying different things.

39:28But you know that tension is a fairly robust and fairly equal society. If one side does not have tension,

39:39there's no. Today, we don't even have a string. Because every one of us are scared to speak.

39:48We are measuring our words, measuring our thoughts. Forget about words, measuring our thoughts.

39:53So we are very, very, very far. And the people in power, Gandhi's idea that there's a certain amount of

40:01awakening in self-realization. No, we are not that. And I think we are also to blame for the situation.

40:08I, you know, it's not that person or this person. The fact is, we did not address hierarchical violence

40:15and hierarchical oppression in our society, which has been systemic for generations,

40:22in a more effective manner. Laws are not enough. Cultural transformation of society

40:30has to go beyond saying, I have a constitution that gives people rights.

40:35You can't imagine subjects to become citizens. Yes. So, but what did we do for that? I think we did

40:41nothing. I know I'm being very harsh and people have sometimes said, no, no, no, no. I don't agree. I think

40:47we've not done enough. Its pockets are not enough, spurts are not enough. But systematically, we have

40:54not done enough to develop a culture of democratic living, culture of equity and equality and justice

41:02and freedom. We've not developed that, which is why we are where we are today, which is why we can't

41:08even think of self-realization. I mean, imagine, you know, I wouldn't bring Ashoka back here.

41:12Ashoka was not a perfect person. I say that too, in my book. But imagine a monarch, even, you know,

41:21arrogant, let's say everything, such a powerful man, coming in public and saying, I'm wrong.

41:28The most powerful person in the world or anywhere in India doesn't say it today. When is the last time

41:36you had a politician say we made a mistake? None. Except when we go to the next elections for

41:43votes. That's probably the only time you probably say it. When do we say it? So, if you live in a culture

41:48like this, which is power grab, we are very far from that India. We are very far. Can we get there?

41:55Well, again, we are talking about an ideal situation. And I think in Hind Swaraj, where Gandhi speaks about

42:01this, I think it's, he says a lot of radical things there. And I think it's, I've said that before.

42:08One of the most radical things he says is, he almost says, British being here or not being here is

42:14irrelevant. Which is such, imagine if somebody said that today. He'll be booked for sedition, I think.

42:22So, I mean, such a radical thing, because it's a profoundly radical thing. Because he's saying,

42:26if everybody realizes that we have to be equal, those who have to go will go. They'll go willingly.

42:32This is not very different from what Ashoka says in one of his edicts, where he talks about harmony.

42:39And it's in the book. And he says, what is harmony? So, he says, listening to another person's dharma

42:50is harmony. Then he stops. He says, no, listening to another person's dharma willingly is harmony.

43:00The moment I can listen to your idea of dharma, his idea of dharma willingly, if I have to move,

43:06I will move. If I have to join, I will join. Now, this is what we're talking about. We are very far

43:14from this. Can we get there? Well, I don't know. But I think we all have to dedicate ourselves. I mean,

43:22every one of us, even if it, and it doesn't mean every one of us do big things, in our house, family,

43:26friends, friends, to make cultural transformations in everyday life, it cannot be just something that

43:34we do in some program or some seminar. No, in everyday life. That, if we can dedicate ourselves

43:43to, which is why I think going back to education schools, our public school system, all this we have

43:50to go to. I really believe if we can completely revamp our entire education structure and we do it

44:00seriously, both at the state level and at the union level, I think in three, four decades, we will see

44:11better India. Do you see your book as a call to rethink nationalism in India? If so, what kind

44:16of civic imagination or practice would you like? So I'm really nervous about these words. I don't

44:22know. Do I have to be a nationalist? Do I have to be? I don't know. Because

44:30why do I have to categorize myself in that manner? You know? Yes, I mean, I have a bond to this land.

44:38I have a bond to this land. I have a bond in culture. I have a bond in language. I have a bond in

44:43in the way you and I smile at each other. All those are bonds that come from geographical, cultural

44:50context that we all belong. Now, what is that? Is that nationalism? No, it's not nationalism. It's

44:57something else, right? Now, why don't just celebrate them? That's all. You know? So I don't want to,

45:04and I really, I'm an idealist at some level. I think all borders have to be porous.

45:11Yes. Fundamentally. Okay. Yeah, I know these people are going to say this is impractical.

45:17You have war here. All that kept, all that accepted. But unless you're porous,

45:25then how do you, then why do we, you know, like, let's take this case of a real problem,

45:30environmental problem. We say it's a global problem. If you are, if you don't take political

45:36borders to be porous, how the hell are you going to deal with the environmental problem?

45:43So that porosity, that porousness that happens in social and cultural happening needs to happen

45:52beyond political boundaries. So if you take nationalism to be this ability to go beyond all these lines,

46:01and if that's the idea of Indian nationalism, which is internationalism at some level,

46:08then I'm a nationalist. If not, I don't want to be Indian.

46:13What practice would you like to see emerge in a country like? Because there are issues in this way,

46:20the national symbols are seen, the country has reached. Yeah.

46:23Because you have written a book on the symbols, so from there. So, I mean, in terms of practices,

46:30I like to see two things. One is directly as far as symbols go. I think, as you saw in the book,

46:36the number of people who invested in creating these symbols, or even the detailing, I feel one

46:43important practice is every one of us can actually have a relationship with these symbols. That's, I think,

46:49a very important thing for us. Not think of them as some, you know, something that's seen somewhere,

46:55or you sing once a year. And think of Janaganamana as a song. Forget about saying anthem, you know,

47:04it's a song. Can you celebrate the song and take inside the values of the song? I would ask every

47:12citizen to engage with these symbols as possibilities for self-transformation and societal transformation.

47:18For, as possibilities for difficult conversations, as possibilities for disagreements.

47:25If these symbols can be used in that manner. And I think this book in some way allows for that

47:32possibility. You can debate a lot of things. Then I think you, as citizens, we start engaging with values,

47:41or with ethics, in a different manner than directly going and saying, X has to be like this, or Y has to be like this.

47:50You know, then we can have different ways of looking at the lines. What could that mean? You know,

47:56what are we saying to each other? Right? What does the chakra mean? All these things, right? Colors. What

48:02do colors mean to us? Now, is the saffron only a Hindu color? Is the green, or even the green in Islam, or

48:10what does it mean? Right? So, is there some, so beyond categories, beyond whether it's Islam, or Hindu, or

48:17Buddhist, or Christian, are there still values from everyone who does religious practices also, or philosophies also,

48:23that you think that we can discuss and take for ourselves, irrespective of what we belong. I think

48:28that's a civic habit that I think we need to do directly, as far as symbols go. Beyond just these symbols,

48:37I think the one thing I wish, I don't know how we have to start doing much more, which we have lost,

48:44is the ability to listen. It is a civic habit. And we have to regain that ability. Because the moment

48:57we don't listen, it's easier to be twisted, easier to be, hate is easier, anger is easier. Everything

49:08else is easier. And that's what is being played upon us, on an everyday basis. It's not even abstract,

49:13what I'm saying. We are seeing it in action. So, that would be a civic habit. I'm a musician,

49:22I know what listening means, slightly more than other people. And I can tell you, as a teacher of

49:28music, and as a musician, the most difficult thing in music is not singing, it's listening. As a teacher,

49:38if you come and learn music from me, if I teach you how to listen carefully, my job is done,

49:44because you will self-correct. You don't need me anymore. You will learn from what you hear,

49:50because you will hear carefully. So, listening for me is paramount.

Category

Transcript

Comments

Recommended