Nationalism and Patriotism: Words of ‘Unstable and Explosive Content’

[prasad1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

In a recent post, I was attacked as anti-India and anti-Hindu. It is demagoguery of this kind that is the rot in society.
People do not understand the proper meaning of the words Patriotism and Nationalism.

"Fake nationalism" is not a standard academic term, but it can be understood as a criticism of displays of nationalism that are seen as insincere, superficial, or opportunistic. It may refer to instances when political leaders or other actors feign patriotic fervor for personal or political gain rather than out of genuine love for their country or its citizens. Here are some contexts in which the idea of "fake nationalism" might be discussed:

Political Opportunism: Politicians might use nationalist rhetoric to win votes or consolidate power, even if their policies or actions don't genuinely benefit the nation or its citizens.

Economic Benefits: Companies might adopt symbols of nationalism in their branding or marketing campaigns to boost sales, even if they don't uphold the values those symbols represent or benefit the country in any meaningful way.

Distraction: Leaders might stoke nationalist sentiments to divert attention from more pressing issues, such as economic downturns or political scandals.

Exclusionary Practices: Some might use a warped form of nationalism as an excuse to marginalize or persecute certain groups, portraying them as "unpatriotic" or "un-national."

Cultural and Symbolic Appropriation: Using national symbols, traditions, or cultural elements in superficial or insincere ways. For instance, wearing traditional clothing or using national symbols for fashion or aesthetics without understanding or respecting their significance.

Critics of "fake nationalism" argue that it dilutes genuine patriotic sentiment and can lead to misguided policies or social divisions. However, the term itself can be controversial. Accusations of "fake nationalism" might be used to dismiss or delegitimize opponents, and what one person sees as insincere, another might view as a genuine expression of national pride.

In any discourse about nationalism, it's essential to be precise and nuanced, recognizing that national identity and patriotism can manifest in diverse ways across different contexts.

 

[prasad1]

This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.

For a liberal polity, we need a clear understanding of what constitutes patriotism and nationalism in the context of the core values of the Indian Constitution.

We the Peoples of the United Nations live as citizens in nation states (except those under foreign occupation). Citizenship implies national obligations. It necessitates adherence to, and affection for, the nation in all its rich diversity. This is what nationalism means, and should mean, in a global community of nations. Liberal nationalism “requires a state of mind characterised by tolerance and respect of diversity for members of one’s own group and for others”; hence it is “polycentric by definition” and “celebrates the particularity of culture with the universality of human rights, the social and cultural embeddedness of individuals together with their personal autonomy”. On the other hand, “the version of nationalism that places cultural commitments at its core is usually perceived as the most conservative and illiberal form of nationalism. It promotes intolerance and arrogant patriotism.”

Here conceptual clarity is needed. Nationalism is often confused with patriotism and used interchangeably. Both are words of “unstable and explosive content” as was pointed out by George Orwell in his essay ‘Notes on Nationalism’. Nationalism means identifying oneself with a single nation, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than of advancing its interests; patriotism, on the other hand, is devotion to a particular place or way of life without wishing to force it on others.

What are, or could be, the implications of nationalism and its variants for pluralism and secularism? It is evident that both would be abridged since both require for their sustenance a climate of opinion and a state practice that eschews intolerance, distances itself from extremist and illiberal nationalism, subscribes in word and deed to the constitution and its Preamble, and ensures that citizenship irrespective of caste, creed or ideological affiliation is the sole determinant of Indianness.

Thus, patriotism is of its nature defensive — both militarily and culturally — and nationalism is inseparable from the desire for power. Decades earlier, Rabindranath Tagore had called nationalism “a great menace” and described it as “one of the most powerful anaesthetics that man has invented”. He had expressed himself against “the idolatry of the nation”, an “ideological poison” that has no hesitation in transcending and transgressing individual rights.

In our plural, secular democracy, therefore, the ‘other’ is to be none other than the ‘self’. Any derogation of it would be detrimental to its core values.

A study of recent Election Manifestos of the BJP is, therefore, instructive. The 2009 manifesto spoke about “the civilisational consciousness of India (that) not only accepts diversity but respects it and even more celebrates it. Hindu or Bharatiya view of life seeks unity in diversity.” The 2014 manifesto spoke of “the civilisational consciousness of India”.

The 2019 Sankalp Patra asserted, “This election is not between two political parties; rather, it is an election to dissipate the negativity that makes us oblivious to our glorious past and our cultural roots and values … The election is to defeat dynasticism, casteism, communalism and corruption so that India’s democracy can be infused with greater strength.” One consequence of it was the much-lauded acts of vandalism presented as “cultural regeneration”. Its result will be to transform our political culture from an open democratic diversity to a narrow formalisation of democracy and openness.


To sum up, the challenge to our liberal polity is both ideological and practical. The latter can be countered by a corrective administered by the electoral process, as has been done from time to time. The former, on the other hand, requires a careful examination of the philosophic backdrop, ideological pronouncements and terminological sophistry of the political hypothesis that succeeded at the polls in 2014 and again in 2019, and which is optimistic about the immediate and foreseeable future. To this end, it puts across a slanted view that while diversity is inherent in the Indian scheme of creation and is the manifestation of a cosmic entity in different forms, its acceptance in the context of the Hindu or Bharatiya view of life requires the exclusion of all alien views that impacted the Indian way of life or left a mark on them. In the process it seeks to erase other influences down the ages, including the existential reality of over a thousand years of Indian history, and to impose an imagined version of cultural homogeneity with all its political connotations, leading to what has been called an ‘ethnic democracy’ whose characteristics have been described by the sociologist Sammy Smooha and more specifically by Indrajit Roy.

The challenge is real; it is also urgent. It has to be met in terms of ideas, practices and day-to-day behaviour.

Nationalism and Patriotism: Words of ‘Unstable and Explosive Content’

Patriotism is of its nature defensive — both militarily and culturally — and nationalism is inseparable from the desire for power.

thewire.in

 

[prasad1]

Indians nearly universally take great pride in their country. Fully 96% of Indian adults say they are very proud to be Indian, and similarly large percentages say they are very proud to be from their state and to be a member of their religious community.

There also are a range of views on what it means to be “truly Indian.” For instance, Indians widely agree that respecting India’s institutions and laws and respecting elders are very important to being truly Indian. But there is less unanimity about whether language and religion are tied up with Indian identity. In a country with 22 official languages and dozens of others, a slim majority (56%) say being able to speak Hindi is very important to being truly Indian. And a similar share of Indian adults (57%), including 64% of Hindus, say being Hindu is very important to being truly Indian.

Indians in the Central region are the most likely to link Hindu identity with Indian identity (78%), while Indians in the Northeast and South are the least likely to say that being Hindu is very important to being truly Indian (33% and 39%, respectively). Regional patterns also exist among Muslims: 40% of Muslims in the Central region say it is very important to be Hindu to be truly Indian, compared with 17% in the East.

Indians’ views on the importance of speaking Hindi to national identity also vary by region. In regions where more Indians speak Hindi, more people view the language as intrinsic to national identity. Fully 85% of those in the Central region – where more than 99% of respondents list Hindi among the languages they speak – say that speaking Hindi is very important to being truly Indian, while only 27% of those in Southern India (a region where just 14% report speaking Hindi) take the same view.16 This regional pattern is once again true for both Hindus and Muslims.

A slim majority of Indian adults (56%) say it is very important to support India’s cricket team to be truly Indian. Majorities of Hindus (58%) and Jains (62%) support this view, but among other religious groups, the share who see a strong link between sports and national identity stands generally lower: Half of Muslims say it is very important to support the country’s cricket team to be truly Indian.

6. Nationalism and politics

Indians nearly universally take great pride in their country. Fully 96% of Indian adults say they are very proud to be Indian, and similarly large

www.pewresearch.org

 

[prasad1]

The sentiment some members expressed is one that has been echoed by critics of extreme nationalism throughout history. The dangers of unchecked nationalism, where the love of one's country becomes a mechanism for discrimination, exclusion, or aggression towards others, have been evident in many historical events. When nationalistic fervor reaches a fever pitch, it can undermine democratic principles and lead to authoritarian governance, discrimination against minorities, and conflicts with other nations.

Critics often differentiate between "patriotism" and "nationalism." While patriotism is seen as a love of one's country and its values, nationalism (in its extreme form) can sometimes prioritize one's own country to the detriment of others, emphasizing superiority and often excluding those who don't fit a particular nationalistic ideal.

However, it's essential to be careful with generalizations. Not all expressions of nationalism or pride in one's country are inherently negative or anti-democratic. It's the extreme forms, where nationalism becomes a tool for exclusion, discrimination, or aggression, that are problematic.

Democracy itself relies on shared values and a sense of community among its citizens. In moderate forms, a sense of national identity can help foster these shared values. The challenge is to balance a love for one's country with respect for the principles of democracy and the rights and dignity of all individuals, regardless of nationality.