JNU fight over nationalism, anti-nationals is between rebels with little cause
The whole country seems to be divided by the recent police crackdown on a protest rally against the hanging of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru at Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University. Those who support the crackdown are calling the protestors “anti-nationals-" or -"traitors”. Those who oppose it are calling their opponents “nationalists” or “goons”.
While a lot of energy has been expended by both sides on calling the other names, the actual meaning of the names themselves have not been properly scrutinized. The word “goon” is simple enough, meaning bully or thug. Similarly, “traitor” is a word that merely means betrayer of a cause. To call someone “anti-national” is the opposite of calling someone “nationalist”. Therefore, defining “nationalist” would help to clarify the meaning of both this term, and its opposite.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary has two meanings for “nationalist”. The first is “an advocate of or believer in nationalism”. The second is “a member of a political party or group advocating national independence or strong national government”.
Nationalism has been defined in many ways. However, in popular usage, it tends to be linked to an aggressive and expansionist kind of nation that sees itself as superior to all others. The most common connection of nationalism is probably with fascism and Nazi Germany.
Oddly enough, the most aggressive country in the world at present is not seen as nationalist, though it is constantly engaged in wars around the planet, and claims exceptional status for itself. I am referring here to the United States of America. American nationalism, even when wrapped in the colours of its flag and backed by the biggest military-industrial complex in the history of the world, is seen as mere patriotism.
The difference between nationalism and patriotism therefore becomes moot. When does patriotism, which is presumably okay, become nationalism Is it patriotism if Americans do it and nationalism if anyone else does it “We” are always patriots; “they” are always nationalists
A more fair demarcation is required.
I find the definition suggested by George Orwell in his “Notes on Nationalism” to be useful. Orwell wrote: “Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.”
He went on to point out that, “Nationalism, in the extended sense in which I am using the word, includes such movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, Antisemitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism.”
There was never imperialism without nationalism. The imperial powers were all nationalist. World War II was a clash between competing nationalisms as new powers with imperial ambitions, such as Germany and Japan, fought for supremacy with old empires such as Britain and Russia.
In the Indian context, India is a state, but it is composed of a mosaic of many nations; it is diverse, not homogenous. There is no single language, religion or ethnicity that binds all its myriad peoples.
There are many kinds of nationalists in India — including Hindu nationalists, who are forever keen to showcase Hindu supremacy. There is also Kashmiri nationalism — there are many Kashmiris who would like to see a united and independent Kashmir, and this desire is rooted in a complex history. The Kashmiris have good reasons to be angry with India, and in all fairness, we need to acknowledge this.
Most Indians, I suspect, are not Hindu nationalists or Kashmiri nationalists. They may, however, be concerned about preserving freedom of speech on the one hand, or the unity and integrity of the country on the other.
Those are both laudable concerns. I don’t see them as being essentially opposed to one another. People may disagree over extent of freedom of speech, but very few are actually against the freedom. The disagreements often stem over how far one can go in criticizing god and country, or what degree of political correctness is correct.
Similarly, there may be disagreements over police action, but very few Indians are actually against the unity and integrity of the country. No one who has the faintest clue about the horrors of Partition would wish to suffer similar ordeals. That such horrors can happen even in our day and age is playing out before our very eyes, in Syria.
The dispute therefore is really a difference of opinion on what counts as seditious speech. A case has been filed, and the courts will decide on the question. Should the case have been filed Probably not, but the good news is that if the court throws this case out, the government will get egg on its face. It will be wary of doing the same thing again.
There is no dispute that the hooliganism against students and journalists in the Patiala House court premises was wrong. Those guilty of violence should be punished.
Once this is done, and the JNU students' union leader is released on bail, there will be no substantial reason left to fight about. If the battles of Left and Right carry on after that, it will be because people have allowed their good sense to be buried under hatred driven by ideologies, and fueled by politicians and sections of the media.
