Nationalism is understood to be an umbrella term under which were subsumed the related phenomena of national identity and consciousness; occasionally, it is employed to refer to the articulate ideology on which national identity and consciousness rested. True, nationalism lends itself to several different meanings because of its fuzzy, shifting and ambiguous character.Yet it continues to fire popular imagination in many countries enabling politicians and publicists to mobilise, though not always for the right reasons, large segments of society in the name of nationalism.
Indian nationalism, though marred by Muslim estrangement, had its finer moments ... In its heyday, nationalism was defined and constructed differently by the elites and the "subalterns". Yet the ambiguities were the greatest strength of Indian nationalism. This is not something the post-modernists should frown upon, for the discourses of scores of groups, though often at variance with one another, were located and expounded within the anti-colonial paradigm. The evolution of institutional pluralism, democracy and political stability was not contingent upon a unified or monolithic interpretation of nationalism. At a time when state-sponsored nationalism is being imposed on our society, this is a lesson that we will not well to remember. In free India, the finest hour in the tortuous career of nationalism was perhaps the drafting of a democratic and secular constitution. with a pronounced egalitarian thrust.
Nehru underlined in 1951 that India had infinite variety and there was absolutely no reason why anybody should regiment it after a single pattern. This ... is what secular nationalism is all about ... A secular state as a political solution for modern India was based on the contention that it afforded the optimum freedom for the citizens to develop into fully integrated beings. This was a modern goal, rational and scientific, and in addition a specifically Indian goal ...
Yet the "nationalist dynamic" has dissipated in several countries ... (In) India ... the demise of inclusive nationalism has been hastened by three factors. First, the historical experience of resistance against colonialism does not find a place in the collective consciousness of the nation; secondly, secularism as an important component of nationalism has been assailed, for a variety of reasons, in different quarters; thirdly, the persistent failure of the state machinery to reduce social and economic inequities has raised doubts over the efficacy of nationalism, as an ideology that cements the bond of unity; finally, the hegemonic language of nationalism has no appeal to the 'new' groups trying to assert their regional, linguistic and ethnic identities.
As a consequence, nationalism and secularism have become contested terms and grown out of their anti- colonial ranks into ethnic and untutored religious consciousness. Doubtless, these trends are incompatible with democracy and institutional pluralism. But what must cause greater concern is that ethnic collective consciousness in India, as indeed in South Asia generally, manifests itself politically and expresses itself in violent forms. The other disconcerting element is that ethnic nationalism, though objectified by perceptions of relative economic deprivation, has so easily merged with religious fundamentalism ..
What we experience today is state-sponsored nationalism or militarism that comes into play only when a nuclear explosion takes places, or when the country is at war with Pakistan. Otherwise, our nationalism remains dormant. Once the war euphoria is dissipated, the deep-seated fissures in our polity and. society surface ... We valorise the martyrs of Kargil, but forget those killed in Sri Lanka. We fund war memorials, but do precious little for the millions affected by the cyclone in ... Orissa ..
How do we travel into the next millennium with this ideological baggage? The ride is bumpy; the journey hazardous .. (Source: The Indian Express, 29 December, 1999)
Amulya Ganguli On Clash of Interest between BJP & Country
Till such happy times the party's interest and that of the country do not coincide. So ... the BJP's interest will tally with that of the country only when its formula of "one people, one culture and one nation" is the mode of governance. Until such times, ... the BJP's and the country's interests will be at cross purposes ...
India is witnessing a political tussle, therefore, between two groups of parties, each guided by totally opposing sets of beliefs. Theoretically, this is what politics is all about, excepting that a free market versus controlled economy debate does not undermine a country's social unity to the extent that one on multicultural versus unicultural society does. The reason is that in the former, even if the rich-poor divide widens because of the pursuit of either policy, it does not easily reach an explosive stage of a kind which the communists may find favourable.
In the pluralism versus homogeneity tussle, however, the differences between the communities can acquire a sharp edge, detrimental to the country's unity, because of the religious factor. Hence, the parties of the centre and the left argue against the mixing of politics and religion. Caution is needed all the more because India has already experienced a partition because of such a mixture. The interests of these parties and of the nation are, therefore, one and the same where the separation of politics and religion is concerned. The far right, however, believes that the volatile combination will help their majoritarian cause, for their vision of the country, where the minorities will be relegated to a secondary status, as citizens, is different from that of the others. But the India of today will suffer. (Source: The Hindustan Times, 17 January, 2000)
