friends,
The ongoing
agitation on the citizenship act gives us credence to ponder on the difference
between nationalism and patriotism. While both the words seem synonymous,
literally there is a conceptual difference between the two. While patriotism is
respect and love for the nation, nationalism is much more intense putting the
nation above the self. Patriotism generates pride while nationalism is more of
a possessive nature to one’s national identity. The liberal view of nationalism
is of patriotism while the radical view of nationhood is nationalism. We can
always ask a question on what makes a person die for his nation, is it
patriotism or nationalism or how altruist leaders emerge then the answer is
from the latter.
Nationalism
developed conceptually only when the European nations like France and Italy
asserted an identity based geographical entity and also as a fall out to
colonialism from colonized nations. However prior to the emergence of such
structured national systems, national identities existed in a cultural context
which we can call as Racial, ethnic and cultural nationalism. Classical
theorist do not subscribe to the notion of ethnocentric nationalistic
credentials for defining a nation but on the principle of geography, law and
justice emulating the nationalistic and democratic movements worldwide. The
cataclysmic effects of ethnocentric ultra-nationalism seen in Germany and
widely known as fascism makes humanity look at nationalism only in a liberal
sense.
There is also
an alternate argument about whether
nationalism is a dynamic or a static concept. While the liberal view has
always been that it is dynamic, the radical view is that it is a static
concept. The recent statement by the chief of RSS Mr. Mohan Bhagvat that he
considers all citizens of India as Hindus is a typical example of a static
concept of nationhood. Dynamic nation, on the other hand, evolves as like any
cultural evolution accepting diversity, in its flow in time into a composite
culture. Well if that composite culture which we call as Unity in its diversity
is Hindu cultural hegemony as the Hindutva protagonists say then the question
is how practically diversity can be preserved in a larger Hindu nationalist umbrella?
It is in this context that we need to look into the CAA. The intention of safeguarding the
minorities in our muslin majority neighborhood is indeed a much sought and
cherished objective since independence. Creating a law for that is a good move
showing political will. However, what has been missed is the intangible element
of perception of nationality. While conspicuously ignoring the Muslim community
from the act with a justification that the identified neighborhood nation is
theocratic in structure created the fault lines that we see today. At a time
when the NRC process in Assam listed thousands as non-citizens and on the
background of a national NRC rhetoric, the perception of nationality as
embossed as a moral principle in the constitution did get disfigured. While they claim that this law does not matter with Muslim citizens in India even if factually right, the
perception of national identity got affected and hence the emotional outflow.
If we apply a 'doctrine of separation' in law making -even though not connected to a
certain group - a separate nomenclature itself affects the moral principles of
lawmaking. At a time when India is economically, militarily and scientifically
progressing and claiming to get a permanent seat in the United Nations,
perception matters and a good government need to develop skills to implement
hard decisions softly. Moreover, the timing of the act when national resources
and sentiment should move in generating demand was inappropriate. India has
developed enormous soft power in the diplomatic arena which needs to be kept
intact where the perception of our nationhood plays a big role.
The calibrated and the cautious move of our constitution-makers in developing an idea of India was
based on this principle of dynamic nationhood. Nations and constitutions are
created by the will and acceptance of the people based on a perception of what
they feel about themselves as a nation but not on what is imposed upon them.
The CAA does not directly hinder this but it did create a conflict of
perception. Nationalistic muscle-flexing can affect the feeling of patriotism of
few if lawmaking is not handled wisely.
