Nationalism or anti-nationalism?

Nationalism is a western concept and defining it is complex. There could be different forms of nationalism but could be loosely generalized as a political ideology and movement initiated to over throw monarchy. In the era of globalization, nationalism limits itself to the collective union of people to safeguard their political, social and economical interests. It demands loyalty and devotion to the cause of the nation. 

In a diverse nation like India with multiple language, culture, tradition and religion, the job of defining nationalism becomes all the more difficult. Political, ethnic, social and civic nationalism collectively play a role in the form of nationalism. In some cases, ethnic nationalism will play a dominant role. Essentially nationalism has evolved from the fight against monarchy or occupying forces to an assertion of power to govern. 

At present in India, we see ethnic and cultural nationalism trying to get a foothold by sidetracking political and civic nationalism. Hence, we find a conflict of understanding of two strands of nationalism. A supporter or believer in ethnic nationalism is called as a nationalist, while “anti-nationalism” denotes the sentiments associated with an opposition to “ethnic nationalism”. The JNU incident and its aftermath have bought this to the focus. 

Ethnic nationalist lawyers, politicians, and few well-known personalities were active in proving the JNU students as anti-nationalist. It looks like ethnic nationalism does not want to give space to civic and social nationalism and therefore term all who do not agree with their version of ethnic nationalism as anti-nationalists. If we try to assess the JNU issue, the actions of those who are blaming JNU students as anti-nationalist are damaging the collective interests of the nation as a whole. The paradox is that the burden of defining nationalism - a western concept is now being shouldered by desi bhakts.

The student’s community and others too have the right to question and debate government policies and programs and decisions of the Supreme Court. A nation that abandon’s questioning is doomed towards fascism. The whole JNU case is based on doctored videos and the alleged sloganeering is yet to be proved. The question raised by the students of JNU could have been debated. The real video shows neither anti-national slogans nor the slogans of Afzal Guru’s alleged martyrdom were raised. 

On the contrary, the evidences prove that he was emphasizing and supporting India’s constitution. However, there is no evidence brought to prove as who raised these slogans. Slapping sedition charges against Kanhaiya does not manifest any kind of civic nationalism. Why is the idea of nationalism in India being disfigured and turning fragile that questioning by students makes it vulnerable to press for sedition charges? Does it not mean anything to Indian democracy when such vibrant student leaders have to be humiliated? What will happen if students lose their belief in political nationalism by such incidents? Are we not encouraging anti-nationalism where police commissioners are not questioned, where lawyers could assault defenceless students and protest against bail pleas of innocent people? If sedition charges can be pressed on students  then all those who engineer riots, spread communal hatred and incite violence must be prosecuted.