Explained : Deconstructing The Politics Of The Freedom Struggle As The Sole Litmus Test For Nationalism In Modern India and Its Impact

BJP detractors, including the Congress and others in the INDIA alliance that springs to life off and on, often have a stock response whenever they are cornered or whenever they need to hit out against the saffron party—the BJP did not participate in the freedom struggle. To be sure, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was founded in 1980, long after India’s independence in 1947, and, thus, did not exist during the freedom struggle. Its ideological parent, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), did not officially participate in the major movements against the British rule, such as the Quit India Movement, unlike the Congress party, although Hindu stalwarts like Veer Savarkar did participate in the early phase of the freedom struggle, for which he paid with solitary confinement in Kaala Paani in the Andaman Islands for long years.

The larger question, however, is whether participation in the freedom struggle is the sole touchstone of nationalism. Of course, this perception squares with the notion that emerged strongly in 19th-century Europe, promoting the idea that each nation should govern itself. A strand of nationalism based on ethnicity is shared heritage, language, faith, and ancestry, which is the article of faith with the RSS and the BJP. They aver that even Indian Muslims are from the same Indian ethnic stock; ‘Their DNA is the same as Hindus’ is their refrain. On the other hand, the more liberal notion is civic nationalism—based on shared political values, citizenship, and allegiance to state institutions. Protective nationalism, the one espoused by the RSS and POTUS Trump, has economic overtones with emphasis on ‘swadeshi’ and ‘Make in India’. Trump uses tariffs to protect the American economic interests. Dr Murli Manohar Joshi, the Hindutva ideologue, famously coined the pithy saying, “Computer chips, yes; potato chips, no”, when the then prime minister Manmohan Singh had flung the Indian doors open for both under his liberalisation and globalisation models. Be that as it may.

Without getting embroiled in semantics, it would be useful to distinguish between nationalism and patriotism. While both involve affection for the homeland, nationalism often implies superiority and can be exclusionary, whereas patriotism focuses on pride and love for the country without hostility toward others. When ethnicity claims superiority, it acquires the ominous jingoistic ring like it happened with Hitler’s Nazi Germany.

Returning to the freedom struggle jibe of the Congress and other opposition parties against the BJP, it must be conceded that it is something the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, himself didn’t approve of when he went to the extent of suggesting the dissolution of the Congress soon after realising its objective—independence from the British rule. Perhaps he thought if the Congress party continued to exist, it would get an undue advantage and self-perpetuate, as it indeed did for more than 40 years after Independence. In fact, the BJP spokespersons often cite Gandhiji in retaliation besides pointing out that the Congress’ founder was Alan Octavian Hume, a retired British Civil Service official. The Indian National Congress held its first session in Bombay from December 28 to December 31, 1885. In an open letter to graduates of the University of Calcutta in 1883, Hume presented his notion for a group representing Indian interests. Though purporting to promote Indian self-rule, a section of the Indian political class says he was planted by the British in keeping with its divide and rule approach.

The short point is harking back to the freedom struggle, especially to belittle the government in power, undermines others, like the millennials, who are doing the nation proud by making significant contributions in many walks of life. Truth be told, very soon the tribe of freedom fighters would be an extinct species. Would that render the latter-day Indians less nationalistic? The year 1947 or 1929 cannot be the cut-off point for the nationalist honour. Those who care deeply for India and love it with a nationalistic fervour, too, make the grade. In fact, NRIs, who shine outside India and are taunted by their detractors for abandoning their motherland, too are Indian nationalists till they acquire foreign citizenship. NRIs, whose remittances to their parents back home as well as to their banks in India that often rival India’s Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) inflow, should be hailed as nationalists whose hearts are in India. Many Indians hold coveted posts under the US administration for which, perforce, they have to foreswear allegiance to India and acquire US citizenship. Yet, their hearts bleed for India. Some of them are millennials who didn’t participate in the freedom struggle. And, BTW, seeking greener pastures, which is often criticised as triggering brain drain, is not at all an anti-national activity, though one may not fully agree with the famous quip—it is better to have brain drain rather than be a brain in the drain—made by Professor Abid Hussain, the former Indian ambassador to the US.

Conscription, which stands for compulsory enlistment into national service, often into the armed forces, is prevalent in the US and Germany, among others. India has never been attracted to conscription except that the Narendra Modi government’s Agniveer scheme for youngsters bears resemblance, albeit superficial, to it, just as doctors doing mandatory rural postings also partially and superficially conform, albeit grudgingly, to the idea of conscription. It is moot, however, if India should embrace the concept wholeheartedly, which perhaps could foster a sense of nationalism. Of course, it would be found to be disruptive by those who have been roped in through lottery or some other random measure. Their employers too would be caught in the cross-fire. The personal lives of the kith and kin, who have been conscripted, too would be affected. Successive governments have avoided it, perhaps fearing its disruptive effects in addition to the fact that the idea doesn’t sit well with a democratic state.

S Murlidharan is a freelance columnist and writes on economics, business, legal and taxation issues.