Nationalism is not anti-rationalism

Dr. Madhu Mangal Chaturvedi
The fear among rationalists (read as liberals and leftists) is that nationalism is a powerful tool in the hands of a rightist Government which can use it to control the masses and become politically immune to the electoral process; since vis-à-vis nationalism, that Government’s performance and actions will be ignored by the voters; and, in the worst case scenario, the leader of any democratically chosen Government could become a dictator-like figure-all this in the name of nationalism. Just like for the fundamentalists anything goes in the name of religion, so too for the rightists, anything goes in the name of nationalism. When the Government emphasizes the symbols of nationalism, such as the national anthem, national flag, army, nationalist history, etc., then it is taking the attention of the electorate away from the real issues. The underlying assumption of this fear is that nationalism is literally anti-rationalism. All those poor masses that would become united in the name of nationalism are not rational and would be gullible to the evil schemes of the Government.
What does it mean to be rational though? Being rational means that one can avoid mistakes due to poor reasoning or, rather, the absence of reasoning. Now, what is good reasoning and what is bad reasoning? Good reasoning means that if someone makes a decision (judgment) which is the same as the conclusion of an argument, then s/he should have based his/her decision on relevant and true premises. In deductive logic, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. If I claim that ‘smoking causes cancer’, my claim must be based on premises which support this claim. However, in a more general sense, being rational and following a rational process to arrive at any conclusion means critically examining the claims put forward by the interlocutor (the government) and the evidence on which the claim is based. In these times of social media and virtual reality, which are also vehicles of fake news (read as claims), one has to be ever more cautious before arriving at any decision and a thousand times more conscious before acting on it.
For example, the cases of mob-lynching or mob-execution on the spot are due to the fact that people hear a claim made by someone and act upon it without waiting for any evidence. If someone claims that X is a thief and gathers a crowd around, then even if we assume that taking the law in one’s own hands by the public and punishing the culprit on the spot is right, still the individuals comprising the public should wait to see the evidence. Now, certainly, executing the desired punishment is easy; the difficult part is to acquire the evidence to show that X is actually a thief, or that X is involved in thieving. Unless we have solid evidence, we cannot and should not punish any person accused of any crime, whether in public or in a court of law.
So, the idea is that nationalism is evil because, in the name of it, a rightist Government can pursue its hidden goals and political motives. Worst of all, a popular nationalist regime renders its political opposition redundant. You cannot oppose any action or decision in the name of nationalism since you will be branded anti-national. The opposite of nationalism is anti-nationalism, but it is certainly not anti-rationalism. Nationalism and rationalism are not contradictory, but complementary. Nationalism is what protects us from being victims of divisive forces which want disintegration of the country in the name of caste, creed, religion and ideology. Nationalism is the binding force which counterbalances these destructive forces. In our country, nationalism is a necessity. However, the liberals might argue that nationalism is based on emotion, and once it is invoked there is no scope for reason.
Here we need to make a distinction between the negative and positive definitions of nationalism. Negatively, nationalism is based on feelings of hatred and aggression towards the other. The others could be the citizens of a different nation, or even those of one’s own. However, in the positive sense, it is love for one’s country, where one acts to defend it against real enemies. It is the feeling that all countrymen belong to one nation, and hence, all the other differences are superficial. A rational person would clearly see that whether or not the feeling of nationalism is invoked in the right spirit, which means, whether it is being used to incite hatred and violence or for the sake of the protection of the very values which define his/her nation. Perhaps the real worry for the leftists and the liberals is that if people are united in the name of nationalism they might become immune to the divisive forces which pitch them against each other in the name of caste and religion.
All in all, nationalism as an idea is not contrary to reason and can be invoked to mobilize the citizens to act towards achieving a common good, for instance, protection of the environment, or eradication of caste, poverty and communal hatred. Nationalism inspired our freedom fighters. Nationalism inspires people from all walks of life, teachers, industrialists, doctors, scientists, and researchers so that they can make their country a great nation. Nationalism inspires athletes who compete in the Olympics to win medals for their country. Nationalism has in fact inspired whole lot of people to do great things for their country and fellow countrymen, and it will not cease to inspire in the future only if we do not act irrationally and abuse this great and powerful idea for baser instincts. But this is true of any idea, be it religious, social, economic and technological, any idea can be used for the negative cause. Hence, there is no wonder why Jiddu Krishnamurti termed nationalism, a “glorified tribalism”. Nationalism unites people within a boundary we call borders but the boundary also means it separates one nation from the other. However, the very idea of nationalism is not final but an intermediary stage of our civilization towards globalism. A stage where boundaries between different nations are abolished and all their citizens are united as one by virtue of being human. It is a big leap, an idea but not fantasy. It can be realized.
(The author is Assistant Professor School of Philosophy & Culture Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com

Follow our WhatsApp channel