India’s concept of nationalism differs significantly from the one prevalent in the West. In many of the advanced capitalist countries, nationalism was based on a shared language, religion and culture. In India, nationalism was defined as the coming together of diverse people and communities belonging to diverse languages and faiths. During British rule, nationalism meant a certain cultural and ideological homogeneity uniting people in their quest for freedom from colonial rule.

Post independence, the concept of nationalism in India has undergone transformational changes that border on the fascist. A power bloc has undoubtedly become dominant in India in last thirty years since the controversial and communally polarizing rath yatra of LK Advani in 1990 which raised the political temperature considerably. The purpose of the rath yatra was to mobilize pro-Hindu sentiments for Ram Janmbhoomi.

One can see the rise of the muscular Hindu nationalism ever since the present Prime Minister Narendra Modi stormed to power in 2014.  In these muddled times, in India, ideology, a religious-cultural definition of nationhood, functions very much the way theories of race used to function as part of the Nazi ideology. The kind of support that the present regime received from corporate world in the run up to the 2014 election does remind one of Mussolini’s famous definitions of fascism as a form of state in which government and corporations become one. The fact is that like all the interwar ideologies of the European irrationalists, extreme right — whether Nazi or fascist or merely militarist, the Hindutva extreme right has fashioned itself on the same trajectory. The BJP functions as a political party but the fact is that it is a right-wing front of the extreme right that is represented primarily by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). They train hundreds of thousands of their cadres to build a well-oiled, invincible electoral machine for contest at the polls. They do propose many significant changes in the Indian Constitution.

Aijaz Ahmad in his essay on the history of the far right in India says, “Indian nation which emerged from the anti-colonial struggle was a fractured one, torn asunder by internal contradictions of religion, caste and class. Yet, anti-colonial nationalism did not compromise with religious fundamentalism which enabled India to emerge as a secular democratic republic, despite Partition and the formation of Pakistan. This success, though partial, can be attributed to the secular democratic character of nationalism that the anti-colonial struggle advocated and practiced.”

Clash of ideas

Almost three years ago, an incident at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) brought the issue of ‘nationalism’ back to the centre-stage. It all started when some students allegedly shouted ‘anti-national’ slogans inside the campus. The Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the student wing of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), tried to enforce a new framework of thought through their vehement protest against what they called lack of respect for one’s country.

They were supported by the mainstream media. These students were labeled ‘tukde tukde gang’ and ‘anti-nationals’. So much so that Home Minister Rajnath Singh then even went to the extent of saying that the JNU incident had the tacit support of LeT chief Hafiz Saeed. Students of JNU were slapped with sedition charges leading to their arrest and few of them had to spend a couple of weeks in Tihar Jail before they were granted bail.

Ideological battle redrawn

It’s not that ideological animosity between the Left student organisations and the right represented by ABVP didn’t exist prior to 2016. Besides the Congress backed National Students Association of India (NSUI) and Chhatra Yuva Sangharsh Samiti (CYSS), the student wing of Aam Aadmi Party, which is in the crosshairs of the state and its police found themselves throwing their weight behind the left organization. It was not just JNU which invited criticism but students in general who refused to conform to the convoluted notion of nationalism as being explained by RSS and ABVP. These students are being branded anti-national, terrorists and anarchists whose activities are tantamount to sedition. This is because their ideological ballast has the potential to cut the ground from under the feet of the RSS and ABVP.

Not surprisingly, Rajnath’s junior minister Kiren Rijiju said, ‘Freedom of expression is a fundamental right but let’s not support the extremist and anti-national groups”. The message was clear: first brand students who were ideologically opposed to the present ruling dispensation as extremists and anti-nationals and then defang their threat by pressing charges of sedition and other offences.

Concept of nationalism

The concept of nationalism had come under critical scrutiny as the national movement entered its mass phase in 1920s. The exchange between Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore on the particular issue is a fascinating one. It also underlined the dangers of aggressive nationalism. While Gandhi saw the emancipatory potential of nationalism, Tagore drew attention to the aggressive possibilities inherent in it. In a piece titled ‘The Great Sentinel’ in October 1921, in Young India, Gandhi wrote, “Indian nationalism is not exclusive, nor aggressive, nor destructive. It is health giving, religious and therefore humanitarian.” In response, Tagore wrote in Modern Review, “As is livelihood for the individual, so is politics for a particular people — a field for the exercise of their business instincts of patriotism. All this time, just as business has implied antagonism so has politics been concerned with the self-interest of a pugnacious nationalism.” In the post colonial India the issues have been constantly debated specially among the student organisations. Nationalism versus patriotism, exclusivity versus inclusiveness, does right wing nationalism refuse to include a vast section of the society?

Debate and arguments on nationalism

Left organisations and leaders look at the right wing aggressive nationalism from different prisms. N Sai Balaji, JNUSU president, says, “I see the debate of nationalism fought and asserted by the ruling BJP/RSS/ABVP regime as an agenda to legitimise their anti-minority, anti-Dalit, anti-women positions. It’s surprising that BJP ministers took out a tiranga march in Kathua in defense of rapists who assaulted and killed an 8-year-old girl. BJP’s reluctance to remove those MLAs who were ministers then in government from its primary membership shows what true nationalism means to them.” He adds further, “BJP is patronizing those who have been accused of assaulting Dalits and women. Shambaji Bhinde, who was charged with assaulting Dalits during Bhima Koregaon continues to evade arrest. People rights activists who have been fighting for Jal Jangal Zameen have been put behind bars. BJP’s concept of nationalism is to jail democracy. We want to free democracy in jail, jungle and zameen. We are for a practicing democracy with people on ground.”

Finding legitimacy

RSS and its affiliates faced political oblivion after Gandhi was shot dead by Nathuram Godse. But after almost three decades of anonymity, it managed to cauterize the wound of isolation by being part of a formation created in opposition to the Emergency. The main beneficiary of this access to state power was the RSS. It used this opportunity to the hilt to spread its influence to areas to which it had no access earlier, like Dalits, Adivasis and the backward castes. That provided the springboard to launch the future offensive. Today ABVP claims to speak on behalf of aspirational youth of this country. Their politics may be based on exclusivity but when they speak they talk about inclusiveness. The national General Secretary of ABVP, Ashish Chauhan, says, “The aspirational youth in institutions of higher learning wishes to see India develop inclusively and on all aspects of economic well-being. Students pursuing bachelors or master’s degrees also envision the country reaching its prized place in comity of nations – be it United Nations or the many other multilateral forums. Entrepreneurial, assertive youth on our campus sees its own role in making India proud.” He goes on to say, “Difference is observed in European concept of nationalism but in India this idea of respecting the Constitution and national icons and ethos is very much ingrained in our deshbhakti. The very deshbhakts who sacrificed their life for India’s freedom or who have laid their lives defending our borders or the real life role models who have devoted their own lives for the downtrodden are often seen closest to the idea of cultural “nationalism” rather than some undefined “secularism” bred notion of patriotism being different from that nationalism.”

N Sai Balaji strongly refutes this claim. He argues that ABVP might talk about inclusiveness to the press but in practice it is far from the truth. According to him, dialectical differences in our country look incongruous in the current scenario in which even a slight dissent is castigated by those who stick to their dogmatic beliefs. He argues, “Nationalism is exclusionary! Patriotism is inclusionary and is for people! RSS version of nationalism means Hindutva. In Golwarkar’s writings it was clearly said their nationalism means those accepting Hindu Rashtra which doesn’t include minorities- Muslims, Christians, Communist as it sees them as threats and enemies. Those against it, they might be Hindus as well as anti nationals. So for BJP, nationalism means Hindutva. Anyone opposed to it are anti-nationals. But for us patriotism means love for our Constitution, people and democracy. Their nationalism is jumla and hamla! Their nationalism is Lynchistan! Ours is Hindustan with democracy and Ambedkar’s Constitution with Bhagat Singh’s spirit.”

Staunch defense

ABVP has a bone to pick with the Left and liberals for having an objection to the word ‘nationalism’, and says that “their past deeds have strengthened that feeling in its spirit too”. But a very staunch defense comes from Kavita Krishnan, an ex-student leader and now a leading women rights activist of the country. She says, “I don’t find very much distinction between nationalism and patriotism. In the context of a country like India that has a history of anti-colonial resistance, nationalism and patriotism can have a progressive content. If nationalism or patriotism is defined as blind pride in whatever one’s government or society does; as hatred for other countries; as hatred for all those movements or activists who try to fight regressive practices and forces in one’s society – it is deeply damaging.”    

While moving the Draft Constitution in the Assembly on November 4, 1948, Ambedkar said: “Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment … We must realise that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top dressing on an Indian soil which is essentially undemocratic.”  Kavita says, “Did Ambedkar become ‘anti-national’ by asking Indians to cultivate constitutional morality and democracy and change its ‘undemocratic soil’? Or by recognising and seeking to change undemocratic, communal, casteist and patriarchal tendencies in the Indian soil, was he the one who truly loved India? In contrast to Ambedkar’s attitude, we find RSS celebrating the ‘undemocratic soil’ in the name of nationalism, and branding all those who seek to change it and strengthen constitutional morality (feminists, working class movements, civil liberties movements, secularist activists etc) as ‘alien’ and ‘anti-national’.

Is there a middle path?

In this ideological battle between left and right, there are other voices that need to be heard as well. In these times of polarized polity we see a convergence of ideologies and unity to take on this threat while making concession to each other. AISA and CYSS fought Delhi University elections together. Sumit, president of Delhi state CYSS says that the alliance was largely based on students issues but greater ideological fight was at the root of it. He says, “Whenever a right wing government comes to power, its first target is always medieval history, especially the Mughal history. They always try to portray how ancient period was a golden one and then how medieval past was that of slavery. In the past four years the debate on nationalism has taken an extremely absurd turn. If we talk about European nationalism, it is all about one nation one language and one religion. RSS and ABVP are trying to import that concept to India. They forget that India is a diverse country. It has multiple culture, language, ethnicity and it celebrates that diversity. In that sense their nationalism is a regressive one, while we talk about positive and inclusive nationalism. Constitution talks about a Republic of India which means egalitarianism. We must not impose our thoughts on the others. Let’s not try and hide our weaknesses and push it under the carpet in the garb of nationalism. “Remember, the author of the songs which India and Bangladesh adopted as their national anthems, Rabindranath Tagore, warned against the dangers of blind nationalism and patriotism. He wrote in 1908: “Patriotism can’t be our final spiritual shelter. I will not buy glass for the price of diamonds and I will never allow patriotism to triumph over humanity as long as I live.” Kavita Krishnan says, “Nationalism and patriotism like that of Bhagat Singh, does not support one’s country and hate other countries. Instead, for Bhagat Singh and for the Left, love for one’s country means love for one’s country’s people – and that is more than compatible with love for the people of the world. If I love my country’s people I do not want them to be killed in wars – which mean I do not want the people of any country to be killed in wars and I struggle for peace.”

Long back, Rabindranath Tagore cautioned us that “nationalism is a great menace”. The time has come to ask the question whether we are living in a time when nationalism has actually become a great menace. The spirit of nationalism is difficult to define. Its inspiration lies in a variety of sources. Territorial patriotism, cultural identity and political tradition contribute to its making. But it is as much a result of structural changes in society as the rise of new classes and new technologies.