Nationalism: Opposing Views

Our nationalism seems to be getting belittled in many ways each day.

A student group chants, ‘India, go to pieces!’ and the government takes aggressive steps against them, setting off accusations that free speech and democracy are being supressed in the name of nationalism. The ‘suppression’ thing may be more talked about than experienced, but nationalism gets a bad name.

Some people promote nationalism’s symbols and icons like flag, anthem, patriotic songs and heroes with such zeal that their critics find it unseemly, though for long, man has used such stratagem to unite people whether of a tribe, nation or religion. Conclusion: nationalism is unworthy of such enthusiastic promotion.

Critics ridicule the government for its chest-thumping nationalism, compelling the government to defend itself aggressively, whereupon, anyone questioning the government on ‘nationalist’ issues is branded ‘anti-national’, and they in turn deride nationalism as outdated.

In this process, nationalism, which for us has always been the force that won us our freedom and created our nation, is getting demeaned. Of course, nationalism is not a nice word in the West- for its past excess. But India’s nationalism was never so, hence, why be apologetic about it. Anyway, in all this, it is noteworthy that sceptics of our nationalism are silent on patriotism, an acceptable substitute for nationalism in the ‘liberal’ West.  

Since the stuff of our nationalism is the strong attachment to our land, its freedom, people, culture, and values, as well as the will to preserve and promote them as citizens of our nation, questioning our nationalism is like questioning our nationhood itself.

What if our nationalism so weakens that the country does crumble, howsoever unlikely it may be? Can we expect the breakaway sub-nations to live happily ever after? Our history doesn’t support such hope; rather, they would engage in ruinous internecine conflicts like those throughout the subcontinent’s history. Present Indo-Pak conflicts would be just a trailer of that.   

Can the constitution of India prevent such event?  But constitution itself was willed, shaped and brought to force by ‘We the People of India’. In other words, it was the people who made the constitution, and if they no longer want a nation, its constitution would matter no more.

In short, to know what can sustain and what can wreck our nation, we need to consider the origins of our nationhood that we now take for granted.

Most of Indian subcontinent had come under short lived Indian empires in earlier times, but political unity was typically confined to units like community, caste, village or city state -not beyond. No doubt there was a certain pan-Indianness since a coalition of cultures and faiths, now called Hinduism, existed due to overlap of faiths, pilgrim centres, beliefs, etc., that overcame the linguistic, caste and other differences. But it was never strong enough to forge a nation. Moreover, people used to think it was the natural order to be ruled by monarchies.

Hinduism was never a unifying political force; when Islamic kings invaded, India’s warring Hindu kings did not unite to repulse them. In contrast, the ancient Greek city states that were fighting among themselves, united to repulse the Persian attack that endangered their Hellenistic culture. Similarly, the monarchies of Europe, though usually disunited despite shared Christianity, united as the ‘Holy League’ to defeat the Muslim Ottomans when they threatened Europe’s faith and culture. This shows that Hinduism was never a unifying political force against external adversity, let alone being a force to create a nation. That is because ‘Hinduism’ is only a tacit social arrangement of tolerance that enables people of different social strata and faiths to coexist reasonably well in peace. In fact, no religion can be a substitute for nationalism.

A true nation gets constituted only as an outcome of people’s will, and for that it took India almost hundred fifty years of British rule, when a sizable English-educated population, familiar with the political philosophy of the West, realized how humiliating, unjust and devastating was the foreign rule. Meanwhile, British, during their longish rule had effectively tamed the warring princes of India, turning many into docile pleasure seekers, which ensured that when British rule ended, they were ineffective to restart the in-fighting that had ruined India.

Then during our freedom movement, largely peaceful, spread over the subcontinent, led by enlightened leaders and with large-scale participation of people from diverse backgrounds, the idea of nationhood took roots. Though Hindus played a major role, it was largely nationalist, driven by India’s ingrained spirit of co-existence developed over millennia. Nationalism is but a state of mind, and the unprecedent unity of purpose, sentiments and pride among the people of the subcontinent, immortalized in Tagore’s ‘Jana Gana Mana’, gave rise to it, and we were firmly on our way to become a nation. Importantly, many other nationalisms based on religion, communities and kingships too existed then. When British rule ended, Islamic nationalism begot Pakistan, but the rest got subsumed in the strong pan-India nationalism.

But for the serendipitous birth of our nation as above, India today would still be riven by warring states, as indicated by the many sub-nationalisms dogging the country. We only need to look around to see how difficult it is for a diverse country like ours to become a functional nation and remain as one. Europe or South America with comparatively less linguistic religious and ethnic diversity, couldn’t become nations despite the obvious benefits to their people.

Certain exceptional circumstances gave birth to the pan-India nationalism that created our nation and fading nationalism could quickly undo it. For instance, it took one decisive election to break Pakistan into two. It took no time for Yugoslavia, apparently stable despite ethnic and religious diversity, to unravel and descend into terrible ethnic wars. USSR broke up along ethnic lines due to Gorbachev’s well-meaning ‘glasnost’ and regional conflicts erupted. Conflicts increase when nations beak but decrease when they unite. Internally disunited Europe spawned two cataclysmic World Wars in 20^th century, while internally united USA and India saw no wars within.

In fact, humans, by their intuitive wisdom, have got progressively more united from tribes to large nations, common markets and to a global UNO, enhancing peace and prosperity.

There is nothing sacred about nationalism, but without it, India’s sub-nationalisms would be warring sub-nations, and ironically, there would have been then a huge cry for pan-Indian nationalism.

                                                                          ---------

India’s Fractured Past

Invoking India’s past generally sets off three kinds of reactions, - ‘Glorious! inspirational’, ‘Right-wing, revivalist stuff!’, or ‘Delusional, regressive’, depending on which past is invoked or who is reacting. As always, our past is very much present and causing complications.  

The past (Hindu in the present context) has two sides; the inspirational ‘legacy’ of art, culture, literature, philosophy etc. and ‘orthodoxy’ of past customs and beliefs which, to many, provide rhythm and sense of accomplishment to life. Legacy part is valuable and belongs to all, whereas orthodoxy can be problematic when misused by community leaders and politicians. The two sides of the past are often taken together, and the regressive parts of ‘orthodoxy’ are highlighted to show Hinduism in bad light. It annoys many Hindus who are proud of their legacy and protective of their core beliefs.

Being proud of the legacy of the past is no sin, nor necessarily an obstacle to progress as some believe. For instance, the rediscovered values of Classical Greco-Roman period inspired Europe to lift itself out of Dark Age into a renaissance and the founding fathers of the United States to fight for independence and write a great constitution enshrining liberal values. Past-glory becomes a drag on progress only if, instead of being inspiration for betterment, it becomes a matter for sterile pride.

How not to be inspired by the past is exemplified by the rampaging ISIS. It has committed unspeakable crimes stirred by some cranky notion of Islamic valour of the past, instead of emulating the legacy of tolerance and great learning during the notable periods of Islamic rule. So, pride in the past can be progressive, regressive or outright dangerous depending on which aspect of it is taken as the ideal.

India’s past, being badly fractured along sectarian lines, has many ‘pasts’, often mutually exclusive, to emulate, like perhaps -‘Sangam’ for most Tamilians, the Caliphates for some Muslims, ‘Vedic’ for some Hindus (not for Dalits) and ‘Ramarajya’ for many, and so on. So much so, mindful liberals prudently exhort the nation to just march forward and forget the past.

India’s past is a prisoner of politics and groups. But world over, countries take pride in their past without any dissent, - like the West of its classical Graeco-Roman period or Islam of its Caliphates- because their populations are far more homogenous than India’s.

For a true patriot like Nehru, India’s past was of only INDIA, not of any religion, region or group. So, his ‘Discovery of India’ became the finest summary of our past: to remember, be proud of and get inspired by. Our past, marked by individualism, enquiring minds and scholarship, is rich with mythologies, architectural and artistic achievements, literature and great philosophies. It has inspired and continues to inspire our thinkers, artists and writers, while the music, dance, Ayurveda and Yoga of the past are much in vogue in some or the other form. An example of our past shaping the present is - how Gandhiji, an ardent follower of Bhagavad Gita, developed satyagraha based on ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Thoreau, who too was influenced by Bhagavad-Gita, the ‘stupendous and cosmological philosophy’ - as he put it. The legacy of our past is very much with us and will continue to inspire us in many ways.

But the same is not true of the many Hindu customs and beliefs. While some are quaint and add colour and cheer to life, others are misused by some Hindus for anti-social acts such as lynching in the name of cow, aggressively opposing supposed ‘Un-Indian’ behaviour or promoting irrationality with preposterous theories about ancient ‘scientific achievements’ based on events in mythologies which admittedly have ‘science-fiction’ touches remarkably clever for that time.  

While past Hindu customs like ‘Sati’ or untouchability are unequivocally condemnable, some like ‘caste system’ and ‘cow protection’ are tricky to handle. For instance, caste is apparently fair for reservations, evil as a social-system, and game for elections, even as most Indians are comfy in its fold.

‘Cow protection’ issue arises due to certain Hindu sensibilities shaped by the bonding many rural and semi-urban people have with the cows in their cowsheds, as also Krishna-legends and the tradition of cow-worship. So, no wonder, illicit and cruel cow-slaughter causes outrage, just as cruelty to pet dogs or stray dogs might cause to pet-owners and animal-activists. If culling of unproductive cows had been humane and well-regulated, the present flareup perhaps could have been avoided.  But appalling lynching incidents have now vitiated ‘cow-protection’ issue. However, generalizing it as the sign of an ‘intolerant society’ (read Hindu) has upset the tolerant Hindu-majority, who feel they are being framed. Nothing good can come out of such allegation.

Ideally, lynching-accused should be promptly punished, and illicit cow-slaughter eradicated. Unfortunately, people are also lynched rather routinely on mere suspicion of committing crimes like child-lifting or stealing, and such mobocracy in general can only be due to the poor quality of human development over the years.

Lynching by cow vigilantes, though rare and isolated considering our vast population, are unfortunately used by some individuals to give a shine to their liberal credentials. Their narrative of an intolerant (Hindus, obviously) society heading towards doom only creates a sense of despondency while being an affront to the majority Hindus who are tolerant. If the multiple, premeditated terrorist acts by radicalized Muslims with hundreds of lives lost were rightly treated as crimes without generalizing them to imply Muslims society as ‘intolerant’, certainly the lynching by the ‘cow-fanatics’ need not be generalized to imply Hindus society as intolerant.

Those who extrapolate lynching incidents to doomsday scenario should remember the decades of hate-mongering that led to Partition and horrendous carnage which neither the national leaders nor the British could stop. While the current situation appears ‘tranquil’ in comparison, some of that poison is still in the soil. But despite that, despite being riven by caste, creed, language and ethnicity like no other nation, and despite the socio-political mischiefs being played, India continues to prosper. It proves the overall resilience and tolerance of the people; we should be proud of them- not run them down.

                                                                          ______________