However, Pandit ji, as a result of colonisation, sought a modern India largely modelled on western lines. He saw our past, which for him was mostly sterile ritualism, superstition and prejudice — the “deadwood of the past” as he described it — as a hindrance to “progress”. He was against organised religion and publicly proclaimed himself an agnostic.

What is interesting though is that even during his political dominance, there were other stalwarts in the Congress who had the courage of conviction to take a radically different stand. Madan Mohan Malviya (1861-1946), who was president of the Congress not once but four times, was one such individual.

Within the Congress, Malviya represented a strong opinion that there was no need to be dismissive about one’s religion. He was the founder of Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha — a pan-Indian organisation for the promotion and preservation of Hinduism. Posterity will always remember him for his tenacity and determination in setting up the Banaras Hindu University (BHU) in 1916, and he remained its vice-chancellor from 1919 to 1938.

In 1910, he started the Hindi weekly, Maryada and in 1933, he launched the publication of a magazine, Sanatana Dharma, from BHU, dedicated to religious and dharmic interests. Hindu symbols of reverence like the Ganga river and cow welfare appealed to him and he acted upon his beliefs.

He founded the Ganga Mahasabha to oppose the damming of the river and compelled the British to sign an agreement in 1916 called the Aviral Ganga Raksha Samjhauta. For the welfare of cows, he created a non-governmental organisation named Shri Mathura Vrindavan Hasanand Greher Bhoomi in Vrindavan. Similarly, he started the tradition of aarti at Har Ki Pauri in Rishikesh, which continues even today. It was Malviya again who, at the 1918 Congress session, dipped into the Mundaka Upanishad to give the slogan “Satyameva Jayate” (Truth Shall Prevail), which remains modern India’s national slogan.

Leaders like Malviya were poles apart from Nehru’s agnosticism and general suspicion about religion. Representing a legitimate spectrum of opinion within the Congress, Malviya believed that if Hinduism had received a serious setback, first under Islamic rule and then due to the British conquest, it was now time to give it its due, and doing so did not entail any conflict with the policy of secularism. That is why he was actively involved in the renovation of the Somnath temple, and, differed with Nehru, seeing nothing wrong in former President Rajendra Prasad inaugurating it.

What needs to be noted is that in the evolution of modern India, there have been different narratives, each well-intentioned and none entirely antagonistic, which motivated the founding giants of our Republic. Such debates could be vented openly and strengthen the debate between tradition and modernity. They did not congeal into aggressive acrimony and black or white polarities that we see today.

The fact of the matter is that modern science and western values, and the profundity of thought of our ancient seers and past achievements, are not necessarily antagonistic. The great scholar, linguist and translator, AK Ramanujan, rightly asserted that there was no contradiction between the recognition of Indian diversity or the quest for modernity, and the legitimate achievements of our past and religious beliefs. His wry comment on those who thought otherwise was: “One way of defining diversity for India is to say what the Irishman said about trousers. When asked whether trousers were singular or plural, he said, ‘Singular at the top and plural at the bottom’”.

Pavan K Varma is an author, diplomat, and former Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha). Just Like That is a weekly column where Varma shares nuggets from the world of history, culture, literature, and personal reminiscences with HT Premium readers. The views expressed are personal