By Prof K Nageshwar
The political opposition, dissenting voices in civil society, anyone and everyone critical of the regime are often portrayed as anti-national by the current ruling dispensation in India. Such an abhorrence raises fundamental questions like what is nationalism and who is the true nationalist? The term nationalism is perceived distinctly by different political philosophies.
1. Inclusive versus enemy within
The anti-colonial perspective on nationalism is essentially inclusive that encompasses people residing within a politico geographic territory irrespective of the caste, creed, religious, regional affiliations. Such an all-encompassing view of nationalism was essential for India to liberate itself from the mighty colonial rulers. Thus, the inclusive participation in the freedom struggle developed a constitutional vision of nationalism that recognizes the primacy of citizenry over any other parochial identity.
Noted Economist Prabhat Patnaik making a distinction between nationalism developed in Europe and the anti-colonial ‘nationalism’ that emerged in third world countries like India in the twentieth century says “the former invariably identified ‘an enemy within’ (Catholics in northern Europe, Protestants in southern Europe, and Jews everywhere) while the latter was inclusive (it had to be for taking on the might of the colonial power); the former saw the nation as standing above the people for which the people only made sacrifices, while the latter saw the raison d’être of the nation as serving the (material) needs of the people; the former was invariably yoked to an imperialist project, while the latter, notwithstanding examples of aberration, was not”.
The divisive view of nationalism based on parochial considerations like religion or ethnicity discovers an enemy within itself. Given the history of British colonial legacy of communal award aimed at colonial project of divide and rule, the religious majoritarian forces in India are attempting to brand Muslims as enemy within. This was evident during the run up to the general elections where Muslim, Mujra, Masjid, Mughal, Mangalsutra, Mandir etc., dominated the divisive electoral discourse of the dominant party, while jobs, inflation, and other livelihood concerns challenged its rule.
On the other hand, the reactionary forces within the minority communities will only aggrandize such a majoritarian world view of nationalism. The majority community looking at the reactionary trend among the minorities consider the assertion of religious majoritarianism as a necessary antidote to contain unruly behaviour and unwarranted assertion by the religious minorities. In the process, the majoritarian nationalism aptly aided by subservient media, digital and social media ecochamber effectively propagates several myths about such an ‘unruly and unwarranted’ behaviour of minorities. The rise of Islamic terrorism within and outside India further corroborates the majoritarian nationalist project.
Thus, a distorted view of nationalism is sought to be exploited for a politico religious mobilization which only vitiates the democratic will of the people.
2. Diversity versus homogenisation
The yet another facet of anti-colonial perspective of nationalism is the celebration of diversity. Indian constitution through several of its provisions and country’s jurisprudence always upheld unity in diversity as the running theme of modern India’s nationalism. The theocratic vision of the nation deliberately stifles the diversity by promoting a homogenised view of the nation and its people. It refuses to recognize the fact that there are several subnational loyalties within the nationhood that are not necessarily contradictory, but, in fact complementary. For instance, the linguistic identities need not conflict with national identity. The freedom struggle wholeheartedly embraced the struggle for reorganization of linguistic states, acknowledging latters legitimate democratic character. But, those who are inimical to diversity try to impose a homogenised view of the society in the name of pervasive national identity. As a result, there are attempts to impose Hindi on non-Hindi linguistic groups. The federal character of India is being trampled upon. There are attacks on the rights of the state. The administrative, legislative and financial space offered by the constitution to states is increasingly being encroached by the central government. One nation one market, one nation one language, one nation one election, one nation one tax, etc are examples of such cynical attempts to replace diverse character of Indian nationhood with that of a homogenous entity. Such a distorted view deliberately confuses between legitimate aspirations either regional or linguistic with that of their parochial manifestations. In fact, due appreciation of diversity promotes national unity, while a coercive homogenization will further promote socio-cultural fault lines existing in a diverse society.
3. Nation versus people
The current ruling nationalist narrative consciously promotes an abstract idea of nation with its accompanying symbols over socio-economic wellbeing of the people. In the name of cultural nationalism, the nation is defined in terms of traditions, customs, social norms and practices, physical features, selective anecdotes of history etc ignoring the fact that the destiny of the nation is essentially the destiny of its people. This narrative of nationalism perpetuates social and economic inequalities to the detriment of common man. The rise in the corporate wealth is shown as national pride glossing over grotesque inequalities. Thus, this truncated view of nationalism ultimately serves the purpose of perpetuating caste, class and all such hegemonic tendencies.
4. Glorification versus critical appreciation
The corollary of above such distorted perspective of nationalism is uncritical glorification of the past or present, while stymieing critical appreciation of the reality with an aim to effectuate the course correction. Such a critical perspective is therefore dismissed as professional pessimism. But, this will only promote status quo and hinders the nation’s progress. Absence of interrogative approach is in fact anti-national.
5. Authoritarian versus argumentative
The divisive view of nationalism by its very character requires to be authoritarian rather than argumentative. The very purpose of authoritarian nationalism is conservative aimed at promoting parochial interest. Thus, the argumentative approach which has been India’s civilizational legacy is stifled. Free speech is sacrificed at the altar of archaic laws like sedition. Dissenting voices are branded as anti-national. Civil rights, freedoms etc., are painted as anathema to nationalist project. The accommodative character of the nation is rudely replaced by a coercive nationalism. The argumentative nationalism provides for realization of the country’s failures, lapses and short comings in order to overcome them. But, the authoritarian nationalism derides any such attempt and brands all those engaged in such argumentative tradition as anti-national. Thus, the authoritarian nationalism serves the interest of those who have a vested interest in preserving and promoting such lapses and shortcomings.
6. Nationalism versus Jingoism
The true nationalism is assertive that only promotes its own identity, celebrates self-pride and seeks unstinted loyalty of its subjects which is essentially voluntary in character. But, jingoism is coercive and involuntary imposition of such a self-pride on its subjects. Anybody who questions such jingoism is considered as someone displaying disaffection to the nation. Jingoism does not even differentiate between the nation and the government represented by the leadership. This is to perpetuate political appropriation in the name of nationalism. But, the Supreme Court upholding the constitutional nationalism has time and again clarified that dissent against the government should not be perceived as anti-national. Dissent is integral to democracy.
But, jingoism gets credence in the absence of inadequate assertion of legitimate national pride by the social and political forces opposed to majoritarian project. Historian Ramachandra Guha argues that the congress obsession with the first family at the cost of leading icons of freedom movement in the post-independent India and the left under emphasis on national icons due to their professed commitments to internationalism have also contributed to the assent of such jingoism.
7. Supremacist ramifications
The divisive view of nationalism unlike the democratic perspective on nationalism is supremacist in character and imperialistic in its pursuit. The white supremacist in United States and elsewhere display a brazen anti-immigrant hatred quite evident from the Dobnald Trump’s election campaign. For instance, Donald Trump has been repeatedly questioning mixed ethnic identity of Kamal Harris. Such imperialistic notions of nationalism has ramifications across the border as it refuses to recognize the existence of modern nations in the guise of cultural nationalism.
Constitutional Nationalism
Unlike the European nationalism which was defined by common language, common religion and a common enemy, Indian nationalism has evolved in the fiery furnace of fight for the freedom. Thus, Indian nationalism is defined by values of the struggle against the British colonialism. These values are reflected in the independent India’s constitution. Even during the freedom struggle Indian’s hated the Raj, rather than the British. Thus, the modern Indian nationalism should be defined in terms of unwavering commitment to the constitutional values like democracy, respect for linguistic and religious plurality and diversity, federalism, secularism, equality, liberty, social justice, etc.
Thus the constitutional nationalism is centred on concept of citizenship evolved in the modern democracies. On the contrary, the nationalism based on segregated identities is an anti-thesis to constitutionalism. Hence, the protagonist of nationalism based on majoritarian identity hates the basic structure of the constitution. Such a majoritarian nationalism thrives by exploiting the social fault lines that continue to exist in the unfinished democratic project.
Dr B R Ambedkar observed that ‘constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment but one that has to be cultivated and that democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil which is essentially undemocratic’. Thus, the fight against majoritarian nationalism cannot be a mere moral or ethical critique of it. Thus, such an aggrandizing nationalism can only be fought through a rigorous effort to correct the social fault lines that still persist in the constitutional democracy.
But the secular and the liberal critique of nationalism continue to focus more on the cultural aspects of majoritarian nationalism. Such a fight on the manifestations leaving the malaise is self-defeating. Instead, the true resistance to divisive nationalism can be a sustained fight against socio-economic and cultural fault lines that provide sustenance to such a distorted nationalist world view.