Post Uri, Definition of Indian Nationalism Has Become Narrower

Post Uri, hyper patriotism has begun to dominate the idea of Indian nationalism , writes Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay.

In his UNGA speech, Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif played to his domestic gallery when he mentioned the K-word and glorified Burhan Wani as a symbol of Kashmiri struggle against the Indian state.

In response, Bharatiya Janata Party leaders including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and president Amit Shah wasted no opportunity to portray the deceased iconic militant as the archetypal terrorist or anti-national. Neither of the depictions is truthful and like in life, in death too, the young man continues to be used as a pawn in a complex game.

The lines between various shades of opinion that question State policy in Jammu and Kashmir have become more indistinct than ever before. A person questioning any government action or policy — Centre or state — must necessarily be a terrorist and as its natural corollary, anti-India and pro-Pakistan.

The space for nuanced views on what constitutes ‘national loyalty’ does not exist in today’s India. Sharif’s ploy and the retort enabled sectarian forces on both sides of the border to entrench their positions.

Also Read: ‘Enough is Enough’, Conveyed Sushma’s Fine Performance at UNGA

Definition of Nationalism Has Become Narrower

As public sentiment in India remains infatuated with the possibility of an overt Indian retaliation to the Uri attack, the definition of Indian nationalism has just become narrower. The ideas of Indian nationality, nationhood and essentials of patriotism have become more restrictive.

If earlier this year, one was accused of treason for supporting the agitating students and faculty of Jawaharlal Nehru University, the risk now is for those who question government’s handling of the situation post the Wani encounter and also do not endorse the Modi regime’s post-Uri attack response.

On both sides of the border, the government has been equated with the nation. Democracy was always structurally feeble in Pakistan but now it faces one of the sternest trials in India. Anybody who sounds a word of caution to demagogic slogans is vilified and cast alongside enemy forces. Forget smoking the peace pipe with Pakistan, but it is also anti-national to call for dialogue with one’s own.

Also Read: Modi’s Kozhikode Masterstroke Reflects Maturity in Pakistan Policy

Nationalistic Fervour Was Not Evident Before Uri

The dominant public sentiment in regard to the situation in Kashmir on the eve of the Uri attack was conciliatory in the wake of the all-party delegation on 4-5 September. There was agreement that there should be dialogue with all the stakeholders, though ambiguity remained whether the Hurriyat Conference would be included in parleys. The short statement released officially after the meeting was the perfect example of a bi-partisan initiative to restore a semblance of normalcy.

Several phrases, missing on the discourse over Kashmir since July, were back to signal that nationalistic hype was being de-scaled by BJP. It was no longer an anathema to discuss the practicability of resuming Indo-Pak dialogue and exploring if new confidence building measures could be considered.

Similarly, on the situation in the Valley, suggestions for adopting a “dual-track” approach for bringing peace in the restive Valley did not have the government respond in anger. Opposition leaders who called for engaging with separatists were not booed away but given the space and respect that opposition must be given.

Also Read: Sushma Didn’t Disappoint, Though Our Stand on Talks Needs Clarity

Kashmir Being Ignored Again?

Rays of hope that pierced the gloom of complete shutdown on Eid-ul-Zuha are no longer visible post Uri and Kashmir is back to where it was previously — seething within and ignored outside. Deliberations on the ground situation in Kashmir have lost centrality amid the raging debate over whether Modi is blowing hot or cold in so far as Pakistan is concerned.

Also Read: Army Must Combat Lethal Infiltrators, Not Go After Stone-Pelters

Branding Someone as Anti-National

Attempts to peruse if there was either intelligence lapse or if security of the brigade headquarters was inadequate are dismissed as handiwork of anti-nationals with the intention of targeting the morale of the security forces.

Soldiers who were killed while sleeping and without getting even a chance to mount a defence are termed martyrs. But questioning if such depiction belittles other soldiers or policemen who have fought greater battles and died in actual combat situation is a strict no-no. Committing sedition has never been so easy in India.

Also Read: Bengal Government’s Half-Hearted Tribute to the Uri Martyrs

Myopic View of Nationalism

The narrowing of the idea of nationalism has to be seen in the context of concerted efforts since the early weeks of this year to force a form of ultra-nationalism on the nation.

It was only when the youth of the country conducted tutorials for the nation on the myriad ways of defining azadi, the concept, for which national leaders waged an anti-imperialist struggle, stopped being red-flagged as an idea to be abhorred, and promoted by infidels to weaken the foundations of the country.

The present regime has thrust its views as those that require mandatory endorsement.

The Sangh Parivar’s definition of Indian nationhood and principle of cultural nationalism as opposed to territorial nationalism is presented as the only way of imagining the nation. Every citizen must endorse the government’s response to Pakistan and contrarians are likely to be branded anti-nationals.

Era of Hyper Patriotism

Fanatical patriotism is not restricted to giving a high five to Modi’s latest jumla — “Blood and water cannot flow simultaneously.” You must also, like Manohar Parrikar, compare Pakistan with hell and not hold the view that gau is not your mata and that no one can impose your choice of meat. The list is endless.

Batting for pluralism and contesting the attempt to limit every issue into a binary formulation is strictly prohibited. Welcome to a country where first person singular is the only part of speech.

(The writer is an author and journalist based in Delhi. His most recent books are ‘Sikhs: The Untold Agony of 1984’ and ‘Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times’. He can be reached at @NilanjanUdwin. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)

Also Read: ‘Enough is Enough’, Conveyed Sushma’s Fine Performance at UNGA