Living dangerously with 'nationalism'

The BJP has made a political discovery of nationalism. It is at the centre of the political resolution passed by its national executive and was the dominant theme that ran through the speeches of its senior leaders at the conclave. The definition and clarifications made by them, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, have created an idea that the country can only dangerously live with. It is a version sharpened and wielded by the party and its leaders against all others. In practice, it denies entry to many sections of people into the doors of the nation. This nationalism is sought to be placed even above the Constitution. Finance minister Arun Jaitley said that freedom of expression does not give anyone the right to call for the country’s destruction. It is a wrong and mischievous statement, meant to lower the value and importance of a basic constitutional right by positioning it against the survival of the “country.” The country referred to by Jaitley is not the country envisioned by the Constitution.

Freedom of expression is more important than the idea of nationalism that Jaitley and other leaders are championing and propagating. Party president Amit Shah found “criticism of the nation” rampant and warned that it would not be tolerated. Home minister Rajnath Singh said that political criticism of the government is fine, but not “of the nation.” Prime Minister Modi also said the government would accept criticism of itself but not of the “nation.” The problem is that the “nation” which all these are trying to protect is not the nation where the great and basic freedoms granted by the Constitution, like the freedom of speech, thrive. Actually, it is these freedoms, which are at the heart of the Constitution, that create the nation. Without them, there is no nation. Those freedoms are hit when students are arrested for shouting and an MLA is expelled for not shouting, and the nation is diminished.

So, there should not be an artificial and manufactured opposition between these freedoms and the nation. The real conflict is between the freedoms and the version of nation these leaders and the party are holding up. It is clear from the words of the leaders of the party and government that their “nation” is a narrow and exclusive political domain, not often distinguished from the majority community. The practical fallout of this virulent return to the idea of an incomplete India, masquerading as a nation, is communal polarisation, and aggravated social and political conflict. The call to focus on governance and development, made by the prime minister, sounds unreal in this environment.