Patriotism in a Nationalist Paradigm

 

Patriotism in a Nationalist Paradigm

 

It is no secret that Indian society, over the past half-decade, has become very overtly nationalist in its outlook, primarily because of the nature of the Indian polity today, and the narrative that it has so intricately woven. Since the Narendra Modi government came to power in 2014, the regime has indisputably brought about a major paradigm shift in Indian politics and society, which has led to ramifications, both good and bad. 

Foreign Policy

The present government has established a much more assertive foreign policy, especially with regard to India’s two main problem areas in international relations: Pakistan and China. Where the UPA had failed miserably in portraying India as a significant force in the psyche of these two antagonists, the NDA has made sure to send a clear message to both, that aggression or humiliation in any form will not be tolerated by India. While UPA sat back and did nothing in the wake of the Pakistan-sponsored 26/11 Attacks and China’s land-grab in Ladakh in 2012, both very overt acts of aggression and violation of Indian sovereignty, NDA thinks differently. The surgical strikes against Pakistan, and the aggressive posturing against China during the Doklam and Galwan standoffs, both testify towards NDA’s assertive foreign policy. In the meanwhile, it has also developed India’s international soft-power, building upon the efforts of the Manmohan Singh government (the Indo-US Nuclear Deal being a successful example), and is projecting India as a strong yet responsible emerging center of global power. 

As regards Foreign Policy, this injection of nationalist sentiment is positive and constructive, and is reminiscent of the assertive foreign policies of prominent leaders such as Indira Gandhi and A.B. Vajpayee. The recent passivity in Indian foreign policy, especially after Rajiv Gandhi and his Sri Lanka debacle, reflected a sort of loss of a collective and powerful national identity for India, and also coincided with Pakistan’s greatest success to date: the Kashmiri insurgency movement from the 1980s onwards. Thus, I rest my case as regards the NDA’s foreign policy successes. 

Kashmir: The Bad

While India had a weak and non-credible leader like Rajiv Gandhi, Pakistan was led by the assertive General Zia ul-Haq, who was acutely aware of the potential of exploiting the Islamic identity for causing India’s greatest challenge in Kashmir, and deepening the communal fault lines already present. His radicalisation of Pakistan and of Kashmir remains his lasting legacy, and India continues to struggle to cope with the same. 

We still do not know how to deal with the Kashmir crisis. While the revocation of the Special Status of J&K was a necessity, and so is the military presence, the present government, like all previous ones, fails to realise the importance of outreach to the public as a whole. Convincing the J&K populace of the Centre’s concern for their welfare is a fundamental step which is missing from all narratives and policies. Kashmir is only thought of as a security issue, not as a social one: one cannot simply demonise all Kashmiris who spray paint “India get out” on their walls, without reflecting upon the root of such large-scale dissent. As ISI wages a psychological war to win over hearts and minds, our sole options cannot be restricted to BSF, Army, and Police. While men in uniform are required to deal with the security situation created by the Pakistani Army and its proxies, they are not a viable solution for engendering social change. 

Further, the kind of nationalism being promoted in the political narratives here is unproductive as well as injurious. While it makes sense up to the point of calling Kashmir an integral part of India, it ceases to hold water once all Kashmiris and Muslims are demonised as being terrorists. These implicit narratives prominent in Indian society today, have been unleashed by certain elements in the political spectrum, leading to hate speech and negative stereotyping of the Kashmiri people. Again, my views must not be misconstrued as those which advocate for ‘azaadi’, ‘justice’ for Afzal Guru, and other such ludicrous notions, I simply believe that extreme ideas on either side do more harm than good. The government and its higher leadership must take care of the kind of narratives they may explicitly or implicitly be promulgating. 

Kashmir: The Good

In some aspects, the government has taken positive steps towards Kashmir. The UPA-created paradigm was severely flawed, emphasizing on J&K’s semi-autonomy within the Indian Union, and a history of weak or no action against Pakistani, Chinese, and separatist activity in the region. It is to the NDA’s credit that J&K and Ladakh are now officially integral parts of India, with no unwarranted ‘special status’ given to the region. Further, the NDA has stated that the rehabilitation of the Kashmiri Pandits to their homeland is a priority, which is also a step in the right direction, and a sign of positive nationalism. However, as already pointed out, the nationalist rhetoric with regard to the Kashmir issue is also prone to going too far, negating the positives of the integrationist stance, and further alienating the citizenry, most significantly the Kashmiri Muslims. 

 
The Communal Issue

Communalism is one of the most persistent and painful issues that has beleaguered India, since the Colonial era. Communal fault-lines are amongst the most prominent in India, with especially strained relations between the Hindu and Muslim communities. Communal violence flares up with surprising velocity, and ordinary citizens tend to suffer at the hands of enraged mobs. Usually these translate into vicious cycles of violence and counter-violence. One of the most prominent examples of these is in the aftermath of the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992. This demolition, widely believed to have been perpetrated by the Hindu extremist group Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), was used as a pretext by the terrorist group Indian Mujahideen and its affiliated gangster Dawood Ibrahim, for the 1993 Mumbai serial bombings. These led to further communal riots in Mumbai between Hindus and Muslims. 

The occurrence of Partition, and the very existence of the so-called ‘Islamic Republic’ of Pakistan (and its terrorist proxies) have caused nearly-irreconcilable tensions between the Hindu and Muslim communities, with each feeling distrust against the other, and resorting to barbaric violence whenever tensions spiral out of control. The sitting BJP government has done little to help, not unlike every other political party in the history of India. 

During its six decades of power, the Congress government was widely seen as being biased towards the Muslim minority community, which often aggrieved the Hindu majority. The BJP and its affiliated Sangh Parivar have very effectively exploited this vulnerability of the Congress system, allowing it to ride the wave of support of the disillusioned majority in the 2014 and 2019 General Elections. The naked populism of the BJP has allowed for it to gain a strong following, especially in the ‘Hindi Heartland’ states, like Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh. And as has been mentioned by a great deal of commentators, the presence of a populist government, such as the BJP in India, the Republicans in the US, or even the Nazis in Germany, are indicative not as much of the success of the populist party as much as of the failure of the political institutions to satisfy the needs and aspirations of the people, who in their desperation turn to an ideology they may not fully understand or accept. In the 2019 General Elections, only around 37% of the votes were polled in favour of the BJP, and 45% for the BJP-led NDA coalition. And, as is often pointed out, most Indians end up voting for the BJP for lack of a better alternative (which needs no elaboration, I believe). 

 

This electrified socio-political climate has cast a thick fog of nationalism in Indian society. Patriotism is not enough. Radical nationalism is now the ‘new normal’. Nationalism is not encouraged, it is imposed. For instance, this is evident in the kind of arguments made by the Right Wingers while defending Demonetisation, when people complained of the excessively long queues at banks and ATMs: “Sarhad pe soldier khada hota hai, tum line mein khade nahi ho sakte?” (if our soldiers can stand at the borders, can’t you even wait in a queue?), even as the old, frail, and poor collapsed (and sometimes died) awaiting their turn for hours on end. 

This nationalism, since it is propagated by certain radical elements of the Hindu Right Wing, often takes a communal colour against the Muslim community. The all-too-common phenomenon of labelling all Muslims as anti-Hindu Pakistani terrorists has been greatly reinforced by the populist rhetoric of the BJP and its affiliates. There has been a greater emphasis on the ‘Hindu’ identity of India, as opposed to the existing ‘Secular’ identity, and such rhetoric eventually translates into communal violence, such as in Gujarat (2002) and Delhi (2020). Of course, this phenomenon is only a success of the BJP because of the failures of the Congress. Had the Congress taken firm action against Pakistani transgressions like 26^th November, or avoided discriminatory policies like the Muslims Women (Protection of Rights) Act, and not abstained from social reform in the Islamic community as was done in the Hindu Community, today the BJP would have no legitimacy as it leads its hordes of radicalised and unruly mob lynchers on their religious crusade over the length and breadth of the country. The BJP is nothing but continuing Congress’s systemic dismantling of secularism, while true liberals stand disgraced in Indian society, all because of the impotence of the self-proclaimed ‘liberal’ Congress, and the vast number of pseudo-liberals infecting social discourse, who make a joke out of true liberalism through their pretentious, uninformed, and never-ending ‘outrage’, while not making any efforts to effect real change. As the media lies either cowed or subservient to its political masters of the Sangh Parivar and BJP, there is little public challenge to the autocracy of this nexus. BJP’s IT cell, along with certain media outlets have been deviously successful in sowing discontent and confusion in the political discourse, undermining the efforts of true liberal activists and peaceful student protesters who rallied against the discriminatory Citizenship Amendment Act. While the atrocities and deliberate complacency of Delhi ‘Police’ during the Delhi Riots are no secret, these elements successfully confused and captured the narrative, turning to issues like Aam Aadmi Party’s Tahir Hussain’s support for rioters, and the killing of policemen in the violence. Nothing is done about Delhi Police’s complacency when a gunman fired into a crowd of peaceful student protesters, or when Delhi Police beat up a Muslim youth while forcing him to chant ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’. 

One cannot stress enough the utter perversion of the slogan ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ by the Right Wing. The slogan is representative of India, a proudly free, peace-loving, and democratic country, not of a mobocratic and theocratic state. This is not Saudi Arabia. There is no greater insult to Bharat Mata than maiming innocents while evoking her name. Patriotism is rapidly dying in this ‘New India’, being replaced by the spectre of Nationalism, which all great Indians, from Rabindranath Tagore to Gandhi, warned us against.