Explained : Hindu Nationalism Versus India’s National Interest and Its Impact

The Epstein Files have caused a political earthquake across the world. India has also felt its tremors.  The theatre of Indian politics has witnessed unprecedented developments ever since the revelations came to light. The Indo-US Trade Deal was rushed through by the prime minister, without a discussion in the parliament or even a cursory consultation with his own cabinet. He then went on to host a self-congratulatory ceremony for the passage of the ‘historic’ deal; attempting to pass off the imposition of effectively increased tariffs by the Trump administration as a great achievement.

The Indo-US trade deal is not only detrimental to the interests of our small and medium businesses and farmers; but more importantly, it jeopardises our energy security and hence, compromises our nation’s sovereignty. This was confirmed by the message of the US Treasury Secretary which stated that India had been issued ‘a temporary waiver’ to buy Russian oil after the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The government sought to downplay this affront by presenting this as the ‘new normal’ given the unconventional nature of the Trump administration and the complexities arising out of the rapidly changing world order where old arrangements no longer hold.

A tragic irony

It is true that we are witnessing a rapid transformation of the world order but many world leaders have chosen to act differently; for instance, the socialist Presidents of Brazil and Spain – Lula Da Silva and Pedro Sanchez, respectively – have stood up to such bullying while others like the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney have stridently criticised the systematic undermining of the rules-based international order by the United States. In contrast, Modi has timidly accepted the unjust deal being imposed on the Indian people.

It is a tragic irony that at a time when nationalism is at the peak of its power within our domestic political discourse, India’s national power and prestige is at its nadir. More significantly, the wilting away of India’s sovereignty is apparent to everyone except the supporters of the Modi regime. Despite the diminishment of national prestige; the self-proclaimed nationalists are silent in the face of this national humiliation. However, it must be emphasised that their silence is not tactical but flows from their understanding of what they consider to be the national interest.

Nationalism and national interest

National interest is broadly defined as the preservation and expansion of the political, economic and military capabilities of the nation-state. There are vital and non-vital components of national interest; vital interests are linked to the very survival of the nation-state while non-vital components are those which can be negotiated.

The paramount objective of foreign policy is the defence of national interest; in fact, it is widely accepted that foreign policy must be free from ideological predilections. In practice, though, policy can never be totally divorced from ideas as states do not operate in a socio-political vacuum. The ideas of nationalism play a pivotal role in defining national interests and delineating its vital and non-vital components.

Since independence, India has been governed by two contrasting discourses of nationalism. The anti-colonial nationalism saw India as a multicultural society which had been condemned to backwardness and poverty due to colonisation. Therefore, post-independence, defending India’s sovereignty was considered vital to the national interest. This was sought to be achieved by remaining non-aligned; undertaking state-led industrialisation to enhance economic capability and ensuring communal amity by institutionalising differences.

On the other hand, ethnic nationalism saw India as a Hindu nation which was destabilised and debased due to the Muslim ‘other’. The nation could only flourish when Hindus become masters in their own land once more. Therefore, countering the ‘other’ – by political and cultural marginalisation – was considered necessary for the very survival of the nation and therefore, vital to our national interest. The economic and military capabilities have to be enhanced merely to serve this primary objective.

Guarding against pretensions of nationalism

It is this definition of national interest which explains the behaviour of the Modi regime and the silence of its ‘nationalist’ supporters; because, they are guided by the principle of ‘accepting external subordination for ensuring internal domination’, i.e., the dilution of sovereignty is acceptable as long as they are allowed to remain masters in their own nation and dominate the semitic ‘other’. This also explains their non-participation in the independence movement for communal pride could be enhanced even under conditions of colonial subjugation.

In his classic treatise, Nations and Nationalism, Ernest Gellner warns us against accepting the claims of nationalism at face value because, ‘nationalism is not what it seems, and above all, it is not what it seems to itself.’ The silence of the Sangh Parivar and its supporters has exposed the pretensions of Hindu nationalism; for while they claim to defend national interests; they actually merely defend communal interests.

History has asked us to make a difficult choice – to choose whether our nation will be guided by the principle of ethnic pride or self respect. It is time to defend our nation; its sovereignty by reestablishing a nationalism based on the principles of liberty, equality, fraternity and self-respect.

This article went live on March twenty-fourth, two thousand twenty six, at seventeen minutes past six in the evening.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.