For The Sake Of Nationalism, India Must Work Towards Growth And Development

Nationalist philosophy is a new entry in the evolution of human civilization. The old nomadic societies had no notion of nationalism and their existence was based on the theory of kinship and clans. The concept of  territorial state came only after the emergence of agriculture as the primary source of livelihood.

In the Indian context, there are references to sixteen territorial janpadas in the Later Vedic Age, which formed the origins of ‘nation states’ in India. The modern Indian nation has many sub nations within it and these sub nationalities define their concept of Indian nationalism in their own ways.

The existence of a strong undercurrent of nationalism is a precondition for launching any freedom struggle from foreign occupation. India as a nation state is a result of British colonial occupation and the struggle for independence. The idea of Indian nationalism spread in the late 19th century and early 20th century and became a rallying point for the freedom struggle. Many writers, intellectuals, old scriptures, novels and even cinema contributed into the making of Indian nationhood.

India in its present form is an amalgamation of the territory that was under the direct control of the British and over 500 princely states which opted to join the Dominion of India through an instrument of accession. The concept of nationalism for these princely states was at variance with one another and India as a nation was absent.

Notwithstanding all that, a nation was born in 1947, which wrote and adopted its own constitution with universal franchise and a parliamentary democratic federal form of government. However, the fault lines of sub nationalities were always active and probably never allowed a seamless bonding of different identities of regions, languages, religions, castes, classes etc. New states were regularly created or reorganized to meet the aspirations of these sub nationalities.

The definition of the ideal Indian nationalism is a difficult exercise, first because of the socio-political divide of the political parties and second, due to the economic divide between different classes of people. In the present context, there is a fierce ideological battle going on in university campuses, court rooms, streets, media channels and in Parliament over what constitutes Indian nationalism. The narratives are purely based on the social constituencies that these parties claim to represent.

It is now a tussle between ‘your nationalism’ and ‘my nationalism’. We have a pseudo name for every entity, individual and group in the country. There are sobriquets coined by fellow Indians to insult each other. In the normal parlance, we refer to Brahmins as ‘manuwadi’, Thakurs as ‘feudal’, Vaishyas as ‘profiteers’, Dalits as ‘reservation seekers’, Kashmiris as ‘Pakistan supporters’ and so on.

These perceptions are disgusting but irrefutable realities of our national life and often, people tend to build their opinions based on these notions. There are names such as ‘pseudo secularist’ and ‘pseudo nationalist’ doing the rounds. If you are from JNU, you are supposedly a ‘Maoist’, if you are from RSS, you are a ‘Godse’ , if you are a Leftist, you are a ‘Chinese stooge’, if you are Modi, you are identified with Gujarat riots, and if you are Sonia, you are an ‘Italian.’

Somewhere in our subconscious, there are deep rooted prejudices, biases, allegations and counter allegations, leaving very little space for healthy discussions. The Left has gone extreme left, the Right has gone extreme right and the Centre is majestically devoid of any strategy. Political and electoral expediency now determines who is a nationalist and who is not. TV anchors have become judges, and media trial is the norm of the day.

With regards to the economic divide, it is alleged that the typical Indian mindset professes a type of nationalism that is primarily aimed at the maintenance of the status quo of the privileged. However, segments of the deprived majority do not subscribe to this nationalism. The idea of nationalism of Rohith Vemula is different from the idea of nationalism of Smriti Irani. They come from different social and economic milieu and we need to respect both points of view.

But the issue of survival in a tribal village in Chattisgarh or Odisha is much bigger than the issue of nationalism. We have in a way invaded adivasi territories, depriving them of their traditional livelihood by depleting forest resources, and have set out on an unabated mining of natural resources. There is hardly any meaningful discussion on these subjects on any forum for the fear that anybody even slightly talking in favour of tribals will be quickly branded as a ‘Maoist’ and thus an ‘anti-national.’

Our Constitution framers believed that once the engines of liberal democracy would become operational, the system would build bridges across different sub-nationalities, and the economic growth and forces of development would weave together all sections of society, thus bringing about a homogeneous sense of Indian nationhood.

But sadly even after 68 years of independence, this does not seem to be happening. Have we failed our Constitution makers? Today, we are fighting amongst ourselves in the name of religion, region, caste and ideology, and are killing our own people, burning down houses and destroying properties. What is ailing the Indian system is its failure to ensure social and economic equality to all its countrymen.

We, as a nation, are trying to turn our eyes off the reality and drifting into needless discussions. Babasaheb Ambedkar had said that though each of us has one vote and every vote has equal power, this power will be meaningless if everyone is not socially and economically equal. When people are deprived and hungry, they will not care for any brand of nationalism, no matter how much noise is made on national television.

The country needs to sort out issues related to agriculture, irrigation, primary education and health care before it sorts out the issue of nationalism. Anyone can see that the decline in agricultural income and the failure of crops are contributing to the increase in number of agitations for reservation in government jobs by those farming communities who were erstwhile living a prosperous life. Farmers are leaving agriculture and finding no alternate source of employment.

In the last 60 years, the number of farmers as a percentage of the total workforce has reduced by over 50 percent. Out of a total of 119 million farmers, 96 million (81 percent) do not have crop insurance. The state of Haryana has 19.5 lakh hectare of barren fields without irrigation and there was a 15 percent drop in wheat production over the previous year in this state alone, according to the Assocham-Skymet Study of 2015.

This gloomy picture of agriculture in Haryana can explain, besides other reasons, why the Jats have been agitating for reservation. There cannot be nationalism in hunger or patriotism in deprivation. The whole debate on nationalism and sedition carries no significance for the majority of the country which is reeling under poverty. Only a perceptible improvement in the social and economic status of the deprived and marginalized majority can take the torch of nationalism forward in the multicultural and pluralistic Indian society.