An Attitude Rethink Towards Nationalism

  
 Nationalism has always been a seductive ideology, not just among us Indians, but for people across the world. What nationalism does best is to create a sense of “Us vs. Them” in nearly every case.

   In the not-too-distant past, all this was welcome because the ‘other’ was either a foreign power or an oligarch or a dictator. In these circumstances, nationalism had a positive, and liberating, effect. But in all these cases the common consciousness it built was founded on blood, gore, war, victory, defeat, humiliation and jubilation.

   Democracy is very different. It needs nationalism as a precondition, but only as a precondition. Democracy is like a butterfly that comes out of the larva of nationalism. It does not appeal, like nationalism does, to primordial ties of custom, myth, lore and tradition.

        Nationalism and citizenship

   Whereas nationalism creates a unity but demonises the other, citizenship sets out on the contrary principle of creating unity out of the spirit of fraternity where differences are embraced. Nurturing citizenship, therefore, is very difficult and challenging principally because it goes against everything that arises spontaneously in us, such as ties of blood and tradition. It is the delicacy and fragility of citizenship which makes democracy and its attendant, fraternity, so hard to practise.

   The Indian “national” was born in 1947. But the Indian “citizen” arrived only after 1950, when our Constitution was framed. Since then we have found how difficult it is to keep the citizenship flag flying as one has to constantly battle headwinds.

   Hyper-nationalism is always waiting out there for the weather to turn. But India is no exception in this matter as countries worldwide are fighting against hyper-nationalism, and not always successfully. The French election was a recent example of this and fortunately a reprieve has been won; but there many other modern nation states, at home and abroad, that face this kind of threat all the time.

       Constitutional provisions

   Our Constitution, which may be faulted at several levels, has firmly laid the foundations of citizenship in our country by ordaining that all are equal; nobody is intrinsically a better citizen than any other. It, therefore, protects minorities, opposes patriarchy as well as abolishes untouchability and caste distinctions from public life. None of these came about naturally, or from below, and it needed the combined strengths of Gandhi, Nehru, Ambedkar, Patel and others leaders at the top for these radical dreams to come true. All these measures would have been unimaginable in the era of nationalism, pure and simple.

   At the same time, our Constitution has had to, on a number of occasions, make concessions to hyper-nationalism. This aspect is best seen in provisions that allow for Emergency to be declared and also to detain people without trial on charges of sedition.

   It would be advisable, then, to rethink our attitude towards nationalism and curb much of the enthusiasm that goes with it. The many ethnic killings we have had over the years, the proud posturing of Shiv Sena-style ethnicism, gau rakshaks (cow protectors) on the rampage and the dubious communal concessions are all expressions of nationalism.

   Citizenship cannot tolerate any of these, but this would need leadership of the statesmanlike variety to deliver.

   No democracy is perfect but we should nevertheless look for a compass in the storm. This is where citizenship alone can be our reliable guide.