The Opposition, dissenting voices in civil society, and anyone critical of the regime, are often portrayed as anti-national by the current ruling dispensation in India. Such abhorrence raises fundamental questions, like what is nationalism and who is the true nationalist?
The term nationalism is perceived distinctly by different political philosophies.
Inclusivity v 'the Enemy Within'
The anti-colonial perspective on nationalism is inclusive, encompassing people residing within a politico-geographic territory irrespective of caste, creed, religion, or regional affiliations. Such an all-encompassing view of nationalism was essential for India to liberate itself from the mighty colonial rulers. Thus, inclusive participation in the freedom struggle developed a constitutional vision of nationalism that recognises the primacy of citizenry over any other parochial identity.
Noted Economist Prabhat Patnaik makes a distinction between nationalism developed in Europe and the anti-colonial ‘nationalism’ that emerged in third-world countries like India in the twentieth century, saying “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 the British colonial legacy of communal awards aimed at the colonial project of divide and rule, religious majoritarian forces in India are attempting to brand Muslims as enemies within. This was evident during the run-up to the general elections where Muslim, Mujra, Mandir-Masjid, Mughal, Mangalsutra, 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 aggrandise such a majoritarian worldview of nationalism. The majority community, observing the reactionary trends among religious minorities, may view the assertion of religious majoritarianism as a necessary measure to address perceived disruptions and challenges posed by these minority groups. Aided by subservient media, digital platforms and the social media echo chamber, several myths about such an ‘unruly and unwarranted’ behaviour of minorities are effectively propagated.
Thus, a distorted view of nationalism is sought to be exploited for a politico-religious mobilisation that only vitiates the democratic will of the people.
Diversity v Homogenisation; People v Nation
Yet another facet of the anti-colonial perspective of nationalism is the celebration of diversity. The country’s jurisprudence and Constitution have always upheld unity in diversity as the running theme of modern India’s nationalism. The theocratic vision of the nation deliberately stifles diversity by promoting a homogenised view of the nation and its people. It refuses to recognise the fact that there are several subnational loyalties within the nationhood that are not necessarily contradictory, but, in fact, complementary.
For instance, linguistic identities need not conflict with national identity. The freedom struggle wholeheartedly embraced the struggle for the reorganisation of linguistic states, acknowledging the latters’ legitimate democratic character. But, those inimical to diversity try to impose a homogenised view of 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 states.
The administrative, legislative and financial space offered by the Constitution to states is increasingly being encroached on by the central government. One nation one market, one nation one language, one nation one election, one nation one tax, etc are examples of cynical attempts to replace the diverse character of Indian nationhood with that of a homogenous entity. Such a distorted view deliberately confuses legitimate aspirations, either regional or linguistic, with their parochial manifestations. Due appreciation of diversity promotes national unity, while coercive homogenisation will further promote pre-existing socio-cultural fault lines.
The current ruling nationalist narrative consciously promotes an abstract idea of the nation with its accompanying symbols over the socioeconomic well-being of the people. In the name of cultural nationalism, the nation is defined in terms of traditions, customs, social norms and practices, physical features, and selective anecdotes of history, 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 the common man. The rise in corporate wealth is purported as national pride, glossing over grotesque inequalities. Thus, this truncated view of nationalism ultimately serves the purpose of perpetuating caste, class and other hegemonic tendencies.
Nationalism v Jingoism
The corollary of such a distorted perspective of nationalism is the uncritical glorification of the past or present while stymieing the critical appreciation of reality to effectuate the course correction. Such a critical perspective is therefore dismissed as professional pessimism. But, this will only promote the status quo and hinder the nation’s progress. The absence of an interrogative approach is what is anti-national.
The divisive view of nationalism requires one to be authoritarian rather than argumentative. The purpose of authoritarian nationalism is conservative and aimed at promoting parochial interest. Thus, the argumentative approach, which has been India’s legacy, is stifled. Free speech is sacrificed at the altar of archaic laws like sedition. Dissenting voices are branded as anti-national. Civil rights are painted as anathema to nationalist projects.
Argumentative nationalism provides for the realisation of the country’s failures, lapses, and shortcomings, and the means to overcome them. However, authoritarian nationalism derides any such attempt and brands all those engaged in such argumentative tradition as anti-national. Thus, authoritarian nationalism serves the interest of those who have a vested interest in preserving and promoting such lapses and shortcomings.
True nationalism is assertive and only promotes its own identity, celebrates self-pride and seeks unstinted loyalty of its subjects which is essentially voluntary. In contrast, jingoism is a coercive and involuntary imposition of such self-pride on its subjects. Anybody who questions such jingoism is considered as someone displaying disaffection to the nation.
Jingoism does not differentiate between the nation and its leadership. This is to perpetuate political appropriation in the name of nationalism. But, the Supreme Court upholding constitutional nationalism has time and again clarified that dissent against the government should not be perceived as anti-national. Dissent is integral to democracy.
Jingoism gains traction when social and political forces opposed to the majoritarian agenda fail to assert legitimate national pride effectively. Historian Ramachandra Guha argues that the Congress party's obsession with the first family, at the cost of leading icons of the freedom movement in post-independent India, and the left’s under-emphasis on national icons due to their professed commitments to internationalism, have also contributed to the ascent of such jingoism.
Resisting Supremacist Ramifications
The divisive view of nationalism is supremacist in character and imperialistic in its pursuit. The white supremacists in the United States and elsewhere display a brazen anti-immigrant hatred quite evident from Donald Trump’s election campaign. For instance, Trump has repeatedly questioned the mixed ethnic identity of Kamal Harris. Such imperialistic notions of nationalism have ramifications across the border as it refuses to recognise the existence of modern nations in the guise of cultural nationalism.
Unlike European nationalism which was defined by a common language, common religion and a common enemy, Indian nationalism has evolved in the fiery furnace of fighting for freedom. Thus, Indian nationalism is defined by the values of the struggle against British colonialism. These values are reflected in the independent India’s Constitution. Even during the freedom struggle, Indians hated the Raj, but not so much the British. Thus, modern Indian nationalism should be defined in terms of unwavering commitment to constitutional values like democracy, respect for linguistic and religious plurality and diversity, federalism, secularism, equality, liberty, and social justice.
Thus, constitutional nationalism is centred on the concept of citizenship that evolved in modern democracies. On the contrary, nationalism based on segregated identities is an antithesis of constitutionalism. Hence, the protagonist of nationalism based on majoritarian identity hates the basic structure of the Constitution. Such majoritarian nationalism thrives by exploiting the social fault lines that continue to exist in the unfinished democratic project.
Dr BR 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. Such nationalism can only be fought through a rigorous effort to correct the social fault lines that persist in a constitutional democracy.
The secular and the liberal critique of nationalism continue to focus more on the cultural aspects of majoritarian nationalism. Such a war 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 worldview.
(Prof K Nageshwar is a senior political analyst, faculty member of Osmania University, and a former MLC. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)
