Mapping the ‘terrain’ of Nationalism as a Political and Cultural Phenomenon

 

Abstract

Nationalism is an ideology embraced by people upholding a strong belief in the values and unique qualities of their own nation and thereby in the process asserting their superiority over other nations. This superiority feeling of the people is grounded in the shared religion, ethnicity, language, culture, or shared values. Nationalism as an ideology makes it possible for millions of people who have never and will never meet each other to care about each, to share a common goal, to kill and die for each- thus, it can be said that Nationalism as an ideology finds its existence in the minds of the individuals, in the symbolic imaginations of the people that creates a feeling of belongingness. This paper talks about the origin of the concept of ‘Nationalism’ as a political and cultural phenomenon. Most research studies have looked at Nationalism as a political phenomenon, but the interrelation of Nationalism and culture has been emphasized since Benedict Anderson’s work on Nationalism. The second section of this paper delves into the genesis of Nationalism in the Indian context. The last section of the paper deals with the present scenario of Nationalism in India as both a political and cultural phenomenon under the governance of the current ruling party.

 

 

Keywords : Nationalism, political and cultural phenomenon, ideology

 

The Origin of Nationalism

Nationalism as an ideology emerged in sixteenth-century Europe as a response to the anomic situation created by the War of Roses that ended the rule of the feudal aristocracy, creating a vacuum at the top of the social hierarchy. In this distress and anomic situation, the concept of ‘nation’ comforted the English people. Nationalism thus marked the transition from feudal aristocracy where membership was hereditary (ascription-based) to the creation of a Nation grounded in the rules of secularism, egalitarianism, and popular sovereignty. Membership in the top ranks of the English society was no longer hereditary based; instead, a gradual shift was observed in the importance of merit. Thus, elite status in this way became a product of merit, talent, and education rather than one of birth- an incomprehensible reality within the society of others (Greenfield, 2005). With the overthrow of the power of the feudal aristocracy, a gradual shift was observed from the belief in the existence of a 'transcendental higher reality' to faith in science- thus, religious consciousness was falling short of accounting for the experiences of these Englishmen. Those who rose to the pinnacles of the social hierarchy needed a new form of consciousness to account for their experience and the cultural material that was available at that time was the concept of ‘Nation’ (Greenfield, 2005). The power that the medieval Churches wielded was questioned with the emergence of rationality. Hence, there was a shift from religious consciousness to national consciousness.

The new national consciousness that emerged was fundamentally egalitarian, secular, and grounded in the principles of popular sovereignty (Holden, 2002). Nationalism as an ideology existing in the minds of the individuals provided the new aristocrats a conceptual tool that could provide interpretations of their experiences. Thus, Nationalism as an ideology makes people believe they are members of the same nation. At the individual level, Nationalism gets expressed in the national identity that coexists and dictates other forms of identities- religious, occupational, etc. This makes it possible for millions of strangers to share among themselves the same common goals and identities. Thus, Nationalism has provided a transformative ideology that played a prominent role in liberating numerous individuals from monarchical rule and promoting the establishment of social positions premised on merit.

Democracy can be viewed as the political manifestation of Nationalism, embodying the idea of governance by the people and for the people. In nationalist societies, membership in the political sphere is not ascription-based- Nationalism makes it legitimate for all members to be involved in political affairs. The legitimacy bestowed on participation in political affairs derived from the principles of fundamental equality is responsible for Nationalism’s most crucial political implication- the State (Shearman and Smith, 2007). The State necessarily acquires the central structures of modernity- open class-based stratification grounded in secularism and bureaucratization principles. As Weber has rightly put it, with Rationalization's dominant forces, we witness an increased bureaucratization of the State where positions are occupied on technical qualifications and the relations within the structure are impersonal. The State is characterized by open mobility, which is again a norm of a nationalist society. The State is the overarching structure; the government is the representative- merely filling it. And the operation of a State cannot be in isolation from the cultural dynamics of society. This being so, political and cultural concerns cannot be isolated. Culture is a symbolic process occurring in individuals' mindsets, providing us the means to structure and make sense of our reality. As such, the political order, though not shaped by culture, is influenced by it significantly. Nationalism- thus, the cultural foundation of society is just one type of culture that provides us with one form of consciousness that helps us to structure our reality and provide interpretations of our experiences.

Nationalism occupied England's dominant form of consciousness by 1600 and was imported by other nations with the advent of time. Nationalism in the Third world countries was characterized by a multicultural society being under colonial rule for the most prolonged period - Asia, Latin America, and Africa came into existence in starkly different scenarios from that of the First-World Countries. The European model of Nationalism poses challenges to the core values of multicultural and multilingual societies like India, potentially creating tensions and conflicts.

In this paper, an attempt has been made to look at the development of the concept of ‘Nationalism’ in the Indian scenario since the conditions under which Nationalism became a dominant political and cultural phenomenon in the Indian context is sharply different from the European model of Nationalism. Also, this paper discusses whether Nationalism in the present scenario threatens the foundational principles of secularism, and egalitarianism of the Indian Constitution.

 

 

Nationalism in a Multicultural Society : The Case of India

As mentioned above, Nationalism as an ideology creates a feeling of belongingness to the same Nation among millions of people and that their nationality constitutes the most essential part of their identity. As Benedict Anderson rightly puts it, Nation is an ‘imagined political community- that is, ‘in the minds of each lives the images of their communion’ (Anderson, B., 1983, p.6). Nationalism is, thus, both a political and cultural project, and it proposes two main arguments: first, that the State's borders should match the homeland of a people- a nation, and second, nations have a right to govern themselves.

Nationalism in Third-world countries was exported in response to colonialism, and many multicultural countries are located in the Third World- Africa, Asia, and Latin America (Nanda, S.K.,2006). These countries have been under colonial rule for the longest time, and while Nationalism in Europe was grounded in the principles of sovereignty, egalitarianism aimed at establishing a ‘modern sovereign state following the one-nation-one-state-dictum’ (Nanda, S.K.,2006), Nationalism in these countries came under different conditions. At the micro-level, Nationalism was a response to the hegemony of the colonizers and was conceived as an ‘anti-colonial consciousness’  (Nanda, S.K,2006) striving to liberate themselves from colonial rule. At the micro-level, Nationalism was a response to the neglect on the part of the colonizers to create provincial boundaries that overlooked the cultural heterogeneity of the Nation. The former corresponds to the political dimension of Nationalism, and the latter encapsulates the cultural expression of Nationalism. Under colonial rule, smaller nationalities were clubbed into one provincial unit, which resulted in the ‘fragmentation’ of their cultural identities. And the mainstream nationalities whose culture and language thrived became the pan-India national identity and dominated the other. Thus, the colonizers overlooked the multicultural set-up of India, and their policy of divide and rule simply ended up creating a mainstream nationality which subsumed the diverse smaller nationalities- thus, their policies simply ended up in the homogenization of diverse cultures. While Nationalism in Europe is a product of industrialization in an attempt to control state power, Nationalism in India is a response to the ‘political framework of colonialism and the cultural framework of the multi-national situation’ (Nanda, S.K.,2006).

The rise of Nationalism in India is connected with the anti-colonial consciousness and diverse groups of people not knowing each other but having a sense of belongingness to the Nation that united them in their desire to liberate themselves from colonial rule. As mentioned earlier, Nationalism as an ideology operates in the psyche mobilizing people from diverse backgrounds to establish a sense of belongingness simply because they identify themselves with the Nation. To them, national identity constitutes the most critical identity that dictates other forms of identity. Thus, Nationalism in India emerged at two levels- pan-Indian political Nationalism aiming at Independence and establishment of independent nation-states, and at the regional level, aiming at preserving the cultural pluralism of our Nation. In these unsettled circumstances, Nationalism offered a revolutionary ideology that liberated the Indians from the hold of colonial rule; however, Nationalism as a concept also has negative repercussions, which will be explored in the latter portion.

The climate of India changed with the onset of Independence. The arrival of freedom, the establishment of liberal democracy grounded in the ideals of secularism, and the protection of civil rights of the people induced national consciousness among the subdued nationalities of pre-Independent India as Surendranath Banerjee envisioned that the making of the Indian Nation would be complete when Indian Nationalism becomes inclusive on a democratic, secular and socialist foundation (Athreya, A.,2016). With the forces of capitalism and the middle-class dominance over administrative positions, this vision of inclusivity seems like a dream!

In the present-day scenario, the principles of secularism and pluralism that form the foundation of the Indian Constitution seem to be negated when contextualized in the ground reality. ‘Unity in Diversity is an intrinsic part of our Constitution. However, in the present context, cultural Nationalism is on the rise, which is detrimental to the development of the Nation. To quote Jelena Petkovic, “a nation is formed through cultural continuity and thus the issue of national identity is almost inseparable from the issue of cultural identity of a people” (Petkovic, J., 2011).

The subjection of people to a common sovereign democratic state has not eradicated their cultural-national boundaries (Nanda, S.K.,2006). While Nation, nation-state, administration, and Government belong to different entities, in today’s scenario, these watertight compartments have been blurred, and raising your voice against the Government puts you into the category of ‘anti-national .’An example of this will be the imprisonment of Umar Khalid, a former student of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) booked under the UAPA act for simply educating the masses about the negative repercussions of the implementation of the CAA act and was tagged ‘anti-national’ for exercising his fundamental constitutional right, the freedom of speech. Many political theorists believe that under the current Government, Cultural Nationalism seems to have replaced Indian Nationalism.

India is the ‘homeland’ for diverse cultures, languages, ethnicity, etc., and the Indian Constitution legitimized cultural pluralism by incorporating fourteen languages in the Eight Schedule under Articles 344(1) and 351. Despite secularism, cultural pluralism, and egalitarianism forming the foundational basis of the Indian Constitution, the emphasis on the assimilation of the culturally minority communities into the mainstream Hindu provides a considerable threat to the secular character of the Indian Constitution. The BJP government seems to be following the same strategy adopted by the colonizers but with subtle differences, creating the dichotomous construction of a dominant nationality (Hindus) and making it the pan-India national identity and the minorities being clubbed under the category of the ‘other.’ With BJP rising to power in 2019, they brought to the forefront an alternative nationalism that is not grounded in the principles of secularism but rather is constructed on the premise that Indian culture is ‘coterminous’ with Hindu culture- an attempt is made for the homogenization of a unified Hindu identity (Nanda, S.K.,2006).

While the ideology of Nationalism in pre-Independent India offered people a form of consciousness that created a feeling of belongingness amongst the diversity of people, which in turn, has helped us to dethrone the colonizers from their power position, on the other hand, it has also generated a lot of conflicts around the globe. Once people started defining who belonged to a Nation, they also started defining who was not part of that Nation. Foreigners, political activists, and minorities became the ‘easy targets’ of nationalists. Nationalism demands that national identity comes above all other identities. Thus, Nationalism which is often seen as a political phenomenon is very inextricably linked to the culture of the Nation.