George Orwell, in his “Notes on Nationalism” distinguishes between nationalism and patriotism. He says, “By “nationalism” I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that the whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled “good” or “bad”. But secondly – and this is more important – I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than of advancing its nation.
“Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism… By “patriotism” I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best but has no desire to force upon other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power.” Nationalism, according to him, includes movements and tendencies such as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, anti-Semitism, Trotskyism, and Pacifism.
Even great intellectuals, many a time, lose their sense and sensibility under the overweening influence of nationalism. G K Chesterton devoted the last 20 years of his life to the cause of Roman Catholic propaganda. He went to the extent of eulogising Mussolini who subverted democracy and the freedom of the press for which Chesterton fought hard in Britain. During World War II, there was such distrust among the people of Germ-an origin, that even a writer like D H La-wrence was subjected to strong surveillance as his wife, Freida, was a German.
In India, too, the debate over nationalism does not seem to abate. The debate should take place in the perspective of nationalism versus patriotism. Distrusting someone on the basis of their religion, caste, language or province is revolting. The leitmotif of the Indian tradition has been patriotism. Barring one or two exceptions, Indian kings never invaded any other country. No one evinced any expansionist tendency ever. However, it does not mean that Indians should not keep the unity and integrity of their nation intact.
Unfortunately, recent incidents create apprehensions about the motive of some people – super intellectuals – who want to dismember India.
The freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to raise slogans for the melon-cutting of India or that the non-Kashmiri students at the NIT Srinagar, should be thrashed for protesting against the celebration over the defeat of India at the hands of West Indies in the T20 world cup. The silence of the intelligentsia over the Srinagar incident is deeply disturbing. Intellectuals, who never tire of defaming India as an intolerant country, are looking on with their mouths shut.
Some super intellectuals try to defame India by saying that Kashmir is under its illegal occupation. These ultra liberals are either ignoramuses or they distort facts under a design. As India approached independence, princely states were given only two options – either to merge with India or with Pakistan; there was no third option. King of Kashmir Hari Singh wanted some time and till then wanted to have a Standstill Agreement with both India and Pakistan. India did not sign it but Mohammed Ali Jinnah signed it on behalf of Pakistan.
Lo and behold! Breaking the agreement, Pakistan attacked Kashmir within two months and occupied a large part of it. It was under the threat of occupation by Pakistan that Hari Singh proposed to accede to India, but India allowed accession only after Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah also supported the proposal. The intellectuals who cry hoarse over the part of Kashmir within India do not utter a word about Pakistan and China occupied Kashmir.
These super intellectuals should learn from Abraham Lincoln. He was so liberal that he ended the system of slavery. It led to a civil war in the US between the North and the South. The southern states were predominantly agricultural while the northern states were industrial. Because of mechanisation, industries were not labour-intensive while agriculture was labour-intensive.
Slaves who were Blacks were easily available as labourers, but after they became free they were no longer labourers. Southern states seceded from the US and formed the Confederate States of America. Lincoln fought with the southern states militarily and did not allow them to secede.
Strategically crucial
These intellectuals, continuing to support the separation of Kashmir, Nagaland and Manipur from the country, should know that India never occupied Kashmir. Kashmir is not only an inseparable part of India but is strategically crucial to India.
Most of the attacks on India from the 13th century to the 18th century were from Central Asia. These invaders came to India via Balkh (Afghanistan) and many of them came through Kashmir. That is why the Mughals also were very circumspect and paid special attention to Kashmir. But today, India has intellectuals who get fat salaries from the consolidated fund of India and support the dismemberment of the country.
However, the controversy created over the slogan “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” was avoidable. Nobody should be forced to shout a particular slogan. Nobody should take any exception if someone shouts “Jai Hind” or “Madre Vatan Zindabad” but refuses to shout “Bharat Mata Ki Jai”. It is heartening that RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat has clarified that raising such a slogan is not mandatory. Though it was his statement that triggered the controversy, with Asaduddin Owaisi adding fuel to the fire, the clarification given by Bhagwat should bring the issue to a close.
The BJP has also disowned the statements of Baba Ramdev and Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, in which they sought to make the chanting of “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” mandatory. But the party’s top brass should ensure that its leaders must not speak in different voices on a sensitive issue. Patriotism cannot be tested on the touchstone of one slogan. As far as possible, patriots should desist from such controversies which sidetrack the real issues.
Published 10 April 2016, 16:49 IST