Imagining nationalism

In the last one month, different incidents and protests at the Jawaharlal Nehru University have provoked us to question the meaning of nationalism all over again. Photo courtesy: The Quint

So far, this word and its interpretation had perhaps been the few words that had instigated and fueled wars across borders, but in February this year, this very word and its interpretation sparked one on the same side of the border. While religion can easily be that word, this time around, however, it was nationalism.

It’s highly improbable that you’ve missed the ‘anti-national’ label that’s been accorded in plenty in the last one month after an incident at a government university in the national capital kicked-off a political war. In case you missed it, here’s a quick fact-checked backgrounder.

But what is nationalism?

Nationalism is not an uncontroversial word. While it is seen as a derivative of the word nation, there are two schools of thought about looking at it. The first, the primordial school of thought takes an evolutionary route and looks at nationalism as the idea that yields the contemporary form of groups or societies that people subscribe to so as to ensure survival; what adds value to the idea of nationalism is that it is thought to be emotional and durable, especially because it draws on a common history, even ancestry.

The second, the so-called modernist idea says nationalism is what is invoked in societies that have a self-sustaining industrial economy and a central authority that can ensure unity while employing certain common or central norms or languages. It essentially looks at it more as an idea used for nation-building. That’s where the idea of ‘imagined communities’ as articulated first by Benedict Anderson comes in for nationalism then is essentially a project that attempts to draw on individual and societal patriotic currents.

So then, did nation come first or nationalism? To me, right now, these interpretations tend to suggest that nation is what nationalism results in and re-enforces. Perhaps one could argue both ways and maybe it is another chicken-egg conundrum.

Does patriotism equal nationalism?

So nationalism wants to draw on patriotism and build further and patriotism by itself may be re-enforced by nationalism, but these related words still represent disparate meanings. While patriotism is a sentiment and has an organic quotient attached to it, nationalism is a introduced idea that builds on an identity. Nationalism requires instruments such as a national anthem or a national day to unify people and to keep on etching the idea of the nation.  

Patriotism is innate and it just grows on its own. If it is not entirely selfless, it is certainly unselfish. Nationalism though may ask for something in return, for it is assumed that the nation-state is also a purveyor of certain essential things. What further adds to this mix is the social contract of citizenship in the post-Westphalian world where sovereignty and self-governance are norms. While sovereignty promises to promise freedom from foreign interference or intervention, citizenship means that for all rights and freedoms promised to the individual, there are a ‘reasonable’ number of directive principles as well. Discussing the validity of these is not the objective of this essay, however, this essay does acknowledge the need for citizenship in the modern world order and the fact that the idea of nationalism (and citizenship) may thus be subject to the central authority.

Multiple realities and the post national

Perhaps, like in most cases, here too a reality exists in a complex overlap of it all, since the primordial seems to have merged with the modernist in an age where the religious, economic and demographic divides are as evident as you have the patience of observing them.

Where an individual like me in an urban setting is drawn to the idea of post-nationalism (not non-nationalism) in the global yet local ever-connected world, there are individuals and families in rural regions who are now beginning to feel the prominence of the nation as they are better connected with other parts of the country and as they emerge out from regional or local shadows.

The university at the backdrop of this particular incident is said to be under a Leftist strong-hold, where as the central Indian government currently tilts to the right. Photo credit: JNU 

It’s also important here to note that how (divided) voices from urban or sub-urban spaces on social media appear to get a shot in the arm from the absence of voices from rural settings on social and mainstream media. Thus, this makes the premise of the any debate (in this case around nationalism) appear smaller than it is. Therefore, while the debate may tend to represent many voices, it still may not represent all voices. We must also note that there are attempts made to label these debates as only being stirred by ‘pseudo-intellectuals’ while adding that the common population is not concerned by it; but that argument must always be treated with serious doubts, for in most instances (especially ones that do not comprise economic factors and immediate security), the common population is too engrossed in the daily act of survival that raising debates may not even cross their mind, and if it does it may come way behind ‘roti, kapda and makaan’ (food, clothes and shelter) in their list of daily priorities. But then again, haven’t polity and politics been spheres the elites (or at least the privileged) have always called the shots?

Getting back, when I use the word post-national, I in no way use it as a argument against nationalism, on the contrary I use it in the context where it may be seen as a probably superlative of nationalism. It to me describes an idea where while the national is very dear to the individual, its relevance has merged with the presence of global or supranational entities like say, the European Union or ASEAN and the deep reach of transnational and multinational organisations. While domestic politics, the contemporary international order that celebrates sovereignty and the uneven spread of education and wealth ensure that the nation-state will remain very relevant, growing global inter-connections, trade pacts and joint efforts also signify that other groupings also acquire greater relevance. Perhaps, a supranational entity like the European Union then could be seen as a primordial evolution of the nation into another bigger grouping that then employs modernist grouping-building techniques. Either way, the significant point to note for the current context is that India thrives in multiple realities and to label them all under a particular kind of nationalism is not only a case of mistaken purpose, but also an unwelcome task. 

The nationalism of a Mini Cooper driving management executive in New Delhi may never be the same as that of a farmer in drought-hit Maharashtra, but then again, neither of those nationalisms may be wrong, and nor their distinct (and perhaps invisible) interpretations and manifestations of it.

Distinctions we must question

So, on a bigger stage when talking about more than one nation, while this debate may also be seen as a burgeoning disagreement between the idea of nationalism and supra-nationalism in the modern age, it definitely must be seen as a rub between the varied ideas within the nation about that idea of nationalism in question. Clearly, it has also grown into one about ‘patents on nationalism’ to freedom of expression. But some more distinctions that will help approach the subject better include:

1. The state is not the same as the government.

2. Nationalism is not the same as patriotism.

3. Order is not the same as justice.

4. Fiction is not the same as facts.

Will this debate end?
‘Imagined communities’ have long existed and will continue to; only the unit of their realisation (or analysis for social scientists) is expected to change with time. And as long as they exist, debates around topics such as what nationalism entails will always continue, for no one can have set of questions to test it. And as long as those debates thrive in peace, India, or any nation-state (or any other grouping) for that matter will be making some form of progress. Until then, it may be better off to establish that while nationalism may cover a similar set of ideals, there may be various exclusive subsets to that which may co-exist in harmony and that to question any of them without valid reason may yield nothing of value.