Events & Issues
New Delhi, 16 March 2016
Nationalism in 21st
Century
CAMPUS &
VOTEBANK POLITICS
By Dr S Saraswathi
(Former Director,
ICSSR, New Delhi)
Debate over “nationalism” refuses to ebb. The arrest and
release on bail of JNU student leader Kanihiya Kumar on “sedition” charges has
introduced a new issue in campus politics that is much more serious than the
issues dominating coming elections in five States.
Political debates in the country are suddenly drawn towards
nationalism and patriotism – two concepts and sentiments that underlie the
making of independent India. They are inseparable noble pairs.
Unfortunately, the two sentiments have become a matter for political party
clashes that will benefit nobody at the end.
There are several identities cherished by a person in India
based on one’s birth place/State, religion, language, caste and denomination
within caste, sect and so on. But, above
all is one’s identity as an Indian – a factor that receives less attention and
perhaps considered less relevant to day-to-day life than sub-national
identities by common people living a parochial life.
This weakness is being exploited by political players in
electoral and parliamentary politics.
Sub-national identities divide society, make up ready-made groups,
promote affinities as well as prejudices, and facilitate mobilization of block
support for ideas and attitudes, public policies and programmes. They help
consolidation of block votes for or against in elections – a phenomenon termed
vote bank politics in India.
The circumstances leading to the arrest incident in the JNU,
the core issue at the bottom, and the question about the truth or falsehood in
the charges are for legal authorities to decide. To the common people of this
nation, it is a testing time for safeguarding and strengthening a strong and
united India in view of tremendous
amount of unnecessary debates and
actions that have emerged. Campus
politics is ignited and is spreading all over the country, and political
parties evince over-eagerness to catch hold of this issue to build electoral
support for themselves.
Nationalism is an article of faith. The National Anthem, the tricolor flag, and
territorial borders are non-negotiable not only for professed nationalists but
for all ordinary citizens. These three are indeed common worshipful matters for
them. Any disrespect to them, leave aside direct attacks, seems blasphemous for
the citizens of the nation.
At the same time, nationalism is not limited to showing
gestures, sticking to symbols, and uttering certain words. It is a deep attachment to fellow citizens,
and a deep commitment to the welfare of the nation.
In this age of globalization, most nations are facing
dilemma over protecting national interests
along with global interests, and with adherence to
international agreements and
regulations, and universal
prescriptions. They are debating conflicting and complimentary role of
globalization and nationalism. Some political analysts are of the opinion that
even in countries where religion predominates as the main force, nationalism
has its hold on the people to keep them united especially in times of war.
But, here in India,
we are busy not just debating nationalism
and communalism, but actively instigating conflicts between the two sentiments.
The conflict hovers around “national” and “anti-national” or “patriotic” and
“unpatriotic” behaviour, signals and
actions. Political parties and their outfits which are openly nurturing
animosities against one another, are the leading players in this conflict.
Nationalism is an ideology that fosters the spirit of
autonomy, independence, and sovereignty of the nation. The members of a nation
share a territory, symbols, traditions, culture, law, etc. Patriotism is associated with loyalty to a
territorial political community based on common history and values. Ethnic
origin, language, religion and other such attachments do not divide patriots.
Nationalists are by nature patriots, and cherish unity and
fraternity in order to represent the nation as one unit in the comity of
nations. In the classical nationalist
view, nationalist polity is the driving force of governments and not religious
community or membership.
Conventional nationalism and patriotism show an individual’s
relationship towards his/her nation. The former seems to relate to unity based
on cultural background; the latter stems from values and beliefs. Consequently, nationalism is inclined to be
more pro-active and vigorous and patriotism subtle and passive. Extreme forms
of nationalism may look aggressive at times
whereas patriotism may assume a peaceful posture. But, the two are
complimentary sentiments to one another.
Neither for nationalism nor for patriotism the State
provides the base. On the contrary, the two sentiments underlie the birth of
many States. The nation-State may certainly have an important instrumental role
in the consolidation of national unity. But, it is not the only source of
national unity.
There prevails a view among historians that Indian
nationalism is an achievement of elitist freedom fighters. The same view can be discerned in some
political parties and their supporting organizations today claiming exclusive
national sentiments. Such a contention overlooks the power of in-born sense of
cultural and historical ties that bind a nation overlapping pluralist
attachments. These bonds cannot be created by conscious efforts of a few nationalists
nor destroyed by ignoring their presence.
India has evolved as a nation by a long
historical process and cultural synthesis which reflect a milieu of composite
culture. Its political unity derives its
strength from its cosmopolitanism. We
have to learn to cherish our plural culture and our diversities and use them to
consolidate our political unity as a nation.
Genuine nationalist spirit in India is inclusive of all shades of
material differences and cultural diversities and is proud of presenting a
synthesis of heterogeneous elements.
Terms such as good and bad nationalism, inclusive and exclusive
nationalism, majoritarian or pluralist
nationalism, egalitarian and aggrandizing nationalism, territorial and cultural
nationalism, linguistic nationalism,
and nationalism based on religious
persuasions, etc., may be
inventions of neutral scholars, but are used by motivated politicians in the game of power politics to unite and divide people.
In this atmosphere, a legitimate question may arise about
the limits of freedom of speech without curtailing democratic rights. To be
specific, in the context of recent events in the JNU, the charge of
“sedition” has to be examined
dispassionately without bias and emotions. Debates, protests, hate speeches,
provocation to violent actions are
different from one another. Each one of
them has its democratic rights, space, and limits. This is a legal question and cannot be left
in the hands of warring groups called political parties which nurture and often
exhibit intolerance of the worst order.
More important is to put limits on campus politics. We are
already late in this job having allowed politicization of every institution and
organization in the country. This is also not simple as voting age is 18 years
and many political parties have active student wings.
The issue that has erupted in the JNU is sheer inter-party
politics. Nationalism and anti-nationalism are mere terms that can evoke public
interest, add seriousness and give legitimacy to publicize a local incident.
---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|