The proceedings of the highest court sounded more like the chatter of uncles or an exchange between a headmaster and parents on whether a boy was well-behaved. It was understood that national interest trumps all rights, that a nation at war brooks no dissent, not even a nuanced articulation of the country’s stand… Positing nationalism against citizens’ freedom prepares the ground for positing nationalism against democracy. Any demand for democratic accountability… is dubbed anti-national.
Yogendra Yadav
If you needed proof of the backsliding of Indian nationalism, the recent India-Pakistan conflict and its aftermath provide that in ample measure. It is not that we have become “overly nationalist”. The real problem is that our nationalism has become overly imitative. The rich legacy of Indian nationalism has been appropriated by a copycat nationalism that parrots a German monster, mimics the Israeli state and attempts to clone a Hindu Pakistan. And we cannot blame just Narendra Modi, the BJP and the RSS for this.
The shocking thing about the Ali Khan Mahmudabad case was not just the final order that offered legal scaffolding to a political witch-hunt. The exchange that preceded the order was more shocking. The notions of rule of law, of constitutionally protected rights or the very idea of freedom of expression were conspicuously absent — as much from the Bar as from the Bench. Perhaps the astute advocate had read the mind of the Court and thought better of raising such abstract issues. The proceedings of the highest court sounded more like the chatter of uncles or an exchange between a headmaster and parents on whether a boy was well-behaved. It was understood that national interest trumps all rights, that a nation at war brooks no dissent, not even a different and nuanced articulation of the country’s stand, such as that of Mahmudabad.
This forced choice between nationalism and the citizen’s freedom is not the tradition of Indian nationalism. Ask Jayaprakash Narayan, the hero of the 1942 resistance, who saw no conflict between his nationalism and his duty to speak the truth on Kashmir or Nagaland or to declare his friendship for the people of China in the aftermath of 1962.
Positing nationalism against citizens’ freedom prepares the ground for positing nationalism against democracy. Any demand for democratic accountability, even from those who heartily supported Operation Sindoor, is dubbed anti-national. The US President has made several successively more embarrassing public claims that contradict our government’s official position on the ceasefire. Yet questions are hurled not at the government, but at those who interrogate the government’s silence. Once the government becomes a synonym for the nation, the “supreme leader” can step in. Anyone who questions him is doing politics, while he is free to unleash a propaganda war, army costumes and all. This is not our tradition. Think back to Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who demanded accountability for the 1962 debacle and ensured a special session of Parliament. Or Ram Manohar Lohia, the bitter critic of Jawaharlal Nehru’s China policy. No one called them anti-national.
The final step in this travesty is to posit the nation against its own people. Any expression of ideological, cultural or regional difference is enough to cry “anti-national”. Once you apply this label, logic can be made to stand on its head. It is Mahmudabad who faces the charge of creating a religious divide, not those who targeted Muslims and Kashmiris in the aftermath of Pahalgam. He is the one accused of insulting Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, not the BJP minister who called her the sister of Pakistan. An obsession with One-Nation-One-Something replaces unity with uniformity. This project needs an enemy, an internal enemy, even in moments of national unity like the Pahalgam massacre that brought all Indians together. This is not what Indian nationalism was. Think back to Sardar Patel, who worked to stitch different communities and regions together in adverse times.
The nationalism we inherited from our freedom struggle was very different. To borrow an expression from john a powell, Indian nationalism was about “belonging without othering”. It sought to build the nation by creating a deep sense of national belonging without inventing external or internal enemies. Its adversary was colonialism, a system rather than a country or a race. Indian nationalism did not pit us against our neighbours, it bonded us with anti-colonial struggles in Asia, Africa and Latin America and the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa. Indian nationalism was focused on fostering a deeper sense of unity among the Indian people. It respected the multiplicity of languages, regions and religions, and sought to weave a complementary Indian identity. It did not take national unity for granted but worked on it without demanding uniformity. Minority interests were advocated by the majority community. Their nationalism led Hindi speakers to defend the rights of non-Hindi regions, while non-Hindi speakers worked for the Nagari Pracharini Sabha.
Instead of copying the European nation-state model of uniformity, it created a new model of state-nation that reconciled democracy with deep differences. Unlike European nationalism, it encouraged debates on what it meant to be a nation.
This Indian nationalism is under assault today. The newfangled nationalism cannot think about fostering a sense of belonging without an aggressive campaign of othering. Advocates of this phoney nationalism have no time to resolve serious internal conflicts like Manipur or inter-state disputes like the ones between Punjab and Haryana or Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. It cannot think beyond Kashmir, and that too, as a piece of property. It cannot but damage Indian unity by portraying Muslims as the enemy. Externally, this nationalism is all about muscle-flexing wherever possible and meek surrender wherever necessary. Its obsession with Pakistan has resulted in the coupling of India with Pakistan on the global stage. Bullying in the neighbourhood has meant that we are surrounded by hostile governments on all sides. This sham nationalism cannot gather the resources or the courage to take on China’s expansionism or Donald Trump’s bullying. Since its understanding of national interest does not involve any principle, India does not have reliable friends when it needs them, as in the recent episode.
This backsliding of Indian nationalism, from Vividh Bharati nationalism to Hindi-Hindu-Hindustan nationalism, is the deepest tragedy of our times. But it would be wrong and lazy to lay the entire blame at the doors of the present dispensation or its ideological patrons. India’s liberal, secular and progressive elite must take its share of blame for the present state of affairs.
If India’s expansive and positive nationalism has been captured by a narrow creed of bigotry and jingoism, it has something to do with the ruling ideology after Independence, an ideology of shallow modernity and deracinated cosmopolitanism. Shorn of emotional, cultural and spiritual content, this ideology failed to retain the deep connection that our nationalist movement had with the people of India. Carrying the vicarious guilt of the misdeeds of European nationalism, the Indian elite disinvested in the idea of nationalism altogether. No wonder nationalism was handed over to those who had made zero contribution to India’s freedom struggle.
Owning up and reclaiming the legacy of Indian nationalism is the most pressing political and intellectual challenge of our times.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tell me why; and how to read a sentence
The Sole Reason Behind Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad’s Arrest Is That He Is a Muslim
The Oceanic Circle: Talk on the occasion of Mahatma Gandhi’s 155th birthday
J&K terror’s old ghost: Pahalgam attack during high-profile US visit
India-Pakistan military conflict will not end terrorism in J&K
Prayagraj to Himachal, Kashmiri Muslims forced to leave college, home. Many slept at airports
Waqf Imbroglio: What the BJP Government Won’t Reveal
Against homogenisation: Advancing diversity through Democratic Confederalism
Alternatives to the nationalism of the conspicuously ignorant: Markha Valenta
After the truth-shower 