But all these debates and arguments were quickly set aside.
The events of the last two years of right-wing political leadership in India have been such that in the name of nationalism we are now often told what we can and cannot eat,22 what we can and cannot watch, what we can and cannot speak about, what we must sing and how. Couples who merely hold hands are harassed and attacked, because expressing love is not ‘Indian’.23 Are all notions of rights to be immobilized in the face of nationalism? Are we yet another nation state in the developing world that initially promised high ideals of emancipation and freedom to its citizens, and is later unable to do so? Or is ‘nationalism’, and even ‘anti-nationalism’, so abstract that its meaning can be manipulated to intimidate and beat down voices of dissent and criticism?
India is a diverse country, and its people have different views about the idea of India and their relationship with it. Instead of silencing those who hold a different view, why can we not respect these differences? And why can the reason for that not be the Constitution or our laws, but basic respect towards humanity and human diversity?
We have given enough importance to politics in regard to nationalism. Perhaps it is because we do not make enough of a distinction between ‘nation’ and ‘nationalism’. As we know, nation states are a nineteenth-century European creation, and following in Europe’s footsteps, India became one only seventy years ago. But nationalism is an emotion, it is a sense of relationship with the community that we agree to be governed with. Nationalism predates nation states. Our ancestors could have felt nationalistic towards their tribe or kingdom, just as we do towards our country. For various reasons, we agree to be part of a common governance structure, and so an entity that has political boundaries—tribe, kingdom, country—is created. Therein lies the link between politics and nationalism. But in a liberal set-up in any era, the way we feel towards a specific entity must not be defined by the political class. It is how we feel towards the entity that must define the agenda of the political class that governs us.
As I wrote early in this essay, I believe that part of the problem is that Indian citizens have lost their sense of themselves as a collective, and therefore, we are unable to establish an authentic and honest relationship with the group entity we call India.
What is India? How do we find her?
Much of our oldest wisdom is in Sanskrit, a language that we do not read any more. Most of our intellectuals for the past 300 years have been trained in Western thought. Indian science and mathematics weakened. Indian political traditions of a mixed Hindu and Islamic character, as theorized and practised in the precolonial kingdoms of the Mughals, Deccani Sultans, Nayaks, Marathas, Rajputs, Sikhs and many others, were delegitimized during the colonial period,24 and have all effectively vanished now. A lot of the existing Sanskrit and Islamic philosophy is unavailable to India’s intellectuals now, and whatever is available is in such an unfamiliar form and context that it is often perceived as irrelevant.
This has resulted in religion and custom emerging as the dominant survivors amidst the vast amounts of our rich wisdom in India. Religion and custom have hence been given a role—encouraged by India’s right-wing political class—to explain the meaning of India to anyone who wants to find her.
Moreover, who wants to search for India? Many of us are happy to let the political class take the lead and inform our opinions. Others seek education or work opportunities in the West, and are sceptical about anything Indian. Meanwhile, the majority is busy trying to somehow fill their empty stomachs instead of contemplating the idea of India.
The problem, therefore, is a very difficult one for us Indians. We cannot find India because we do not have the material, tools or the will to do so any more. Nor can we turn away from the West, as its institutions, such as nation states, democracy, and capitalism, are now available, acceptable and even desirable. This is the opportunity that the Indian right wing exploits. It steps in, bringing to us religion and customs as easy channels to know India once again, and forcing us to relate to our country through those lenses alone.
The truth is that we do not have to necessarily choose between polarities, such as India/West, modernity/tradition, traditional/organic, secular/religious, Hindu/Muslim and so on, to understand and relate to our country. These factors are not necessarily opposed to each other. We can straddle both or several of them in our own unique ways, gradually rendering the lead of the political class to guide us out of our confusion as pointless.
Our self-awareness and ability to make choices regarding our relationship with our country will only come when good quality education at school, in the family and in society is imparted to one and all in the country. This is the only way to ensure that it is not just the 10 per cent elite but even the general masses who are capable of taking informed decisions independent of the agenda of others. We will then be able to differentiate our understanding of nationalism from what we are told by people with an agenda. In a country where everyone is educated and has a rational head on their shoulders, it is hard to singularize ‘one people’. Therefore, it will not be possible to thrust down our throats the idea of only one type of nationalism. Instead, in such a scenario, each of us will be able to leverage our intellectual and emotional breadth to sense how we really feel towards the India we know. That would be our nationalism.References
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (Brooklyn: Verso Books).
Anderson, Benedict. 1998. The Spectre of Comparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia and the World (Brooklyn: Verso Books).
Barry, Ellen. 2016. Indian cinemas must play
