After 2014, two terms have dominated our public discourse significantly. The first one is Nationalism and the second Democracy. Recently, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, in an interview to a channel, deftly dealt with these issues. Nationalism, as explained by him, needn’t be seen as a bad word. Rightly dismissing reports that India is facing democratic backsliding under the current dispensation, he forcefully argued that the country does not need approval or tedious moral lectures from a “set of self-appointed custodians of the world”. He was forthright in saying that these custodians “find it very difficult to stomach that somebody in India is not looking for their approval, is not willing to play the game they want to be played … so they invent their rules, their parameters, they pass their judgments and then make out as though this is some kind of global exercise”.
In the case of nationalism, attempts to denigrate the very concept have been there for a long time. Especially during the heydays of colonialism, when large numbers of countries were ruled by European powers, a certain kind of negativity was deliberately attributed to the term nationalism. However, the fact remains that without the emergence of nationalism—with strong national spirit at its core overthrowing colonial regimes wouldn’t have been possible. Later, understandably, in the early days of globalisation again, efforts were made to denigrate nationalism. But in spite of all these, nationalism continues to inspire people, influence their thinking and integrate communities. Nationalism, unlike any other isms, unites people as pure patriotism is the foundation of national spirit.
Simply put, patriotism is the love for your motherland. It is not a construct. It is a natural instinct because your motherland gives you an identity. Again, social scientists who used to dismiss identity as a primordial feeling today accept its importance in shaping the lives of the people. Identity provides you a particular recognition. Regardless of the famous Shakespearean question ‘What’s in a name?’, the fact remains that a name provides you a distinct and unique identity. Conscious of the historical role played by identity in strifes and struggles of humanity, social scientists today insist on using the term ‘salad bowl’ in place of ‘melting pot’ while describing the demography of cities like Mumbai or New York. This is because the former allows one to retain one’s individualism while being a part of a common, collective identity. In this backdrop, the importance of nationalism requires no elaboration. Further, it is absolutely illogical to pit nationalism against internationalism. If one’s family identity can peacefully coexist with regional identity, why can’t nationalism and internationalism go hand in hand? Identity is always evolving. Vinobha Bhave gave the call for Jai Jagat, without rubbishing the call for Jai Hind! Both, the importance and limitations of smaller identities, need to be realised to have a larger and all encompassing identity established in a globalised world. India is a scintillating example of multiple identities coexisting peacefully on the twin pillars of mutuality of respect and commitment to harmony.
And here lies the foundation of our success on the front of political democracy. Remember, democracy has not been imported into India. It has been there in our blood since time immemorial. Our political democracy is built on the solid foundation of our spiritual democracy, and now we are marching ahead under PM Modi’s leadership towards strengthening our social and economic democracies.
Notably, the term secularism was not in our preamble because the overarching spirit of accommodation has been the bedrock of Indian democracy. It was Dr Ambedkar’s courage of conviction rooted in his commitment to justice, equality and fraternity—that empowered him to refuse the demand for incorporating terms like socialist and secular in the preamble of our Constitution. And from where did his courage of conviction come? In an All India Radio broadcast speech on 3 October 1954, he declared: “Positively, my social philosophy, may be said to be enshrined in three words: liberty, equality and fraternity. Let no one, however, say that I have borrowed my philosophy from the French revolution. I have not. My philosophy has roots in religion and not in political science. I have derived them from the teachings of my Master, the Buddha. In his philosophy, liberty and equality had a place.”
This is an oblique recognition of the fact that both, our nationalism as well as our democracy, hinge upon our cultural moorings. It was not for no reason that the BJP has been emphasising upon cultural nationalism. Ekam Sat, Vipra Bahuda Vadanti is the millennia-old manifesto of our spiritual/ cultural democracy, whereas Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam is the lofty ideal reminding us that eventually we have to graduate from nationalism to universalism. These foundational concepts liberate our nationalism from the temptations of jingoism and supremacism. Therefore, our nationalism is essentially a democratic nationalism, a point largely missed by the West while applying their yardsticks to us.
Vinay Sahasrabuddhe
(vinays57@gmail.com)
President, ICCR, and BJP Rajya Sabha MP