Vishal Sharma
The language of nationalism is being subverted in this country. There has been only one strand of nationalism; and it has been firmly cast in shades of black and white. The fervor of nationalism has never been perched in the band of grey.
Alas, that is changing now.
There is nothing wrong with the evolution of narratives in the realm of philosophy and in real life. The process of evolution engenders multiple thoughts and, as a necessary consequence, a better and more refined understanding of the matter.
There is creation of alternative narrative, space and perception. This, as the history tells us, has always enriched the portals of original line of thinking.
Nationalism as an abstract thought is very powerful. It evokes instant loyalties and enmities at once. And that is its biggest flaw because before any value judgement can happen, it has already caused the people to array themselves on either side; take positions and defend them.
More often, such positioning is unreasoned and guided by emotions.
The debate that is raging in JNU only reinforces these constrasting strands of nationalism and the tendency to cheerlead them by the opposing groups.
Kanahiya Kumar’s stirring speech, before he was jailed, laid bare the heart of a man whose idea of nationalism is at logger heads with the state. He has drawn inspiration from those who are fighting the indian state in the jungles of Bastar and elsewhere and whose avowed aim is to usurp the indian constitution.
Kanaihya is a product of the setting where upper caste feudal armies have always tried to subdue the subaltern. Kanaihya, therefore, has seen life only from the perspective of a tiller or a marginal farmer who is at the mercy of a feudal lord.
The setting and his family’s unending battle against the feudalism in his village in distant Bihar has, thus, shaped his idea of nationalism. For him, nationalism of the kind sworn by his well heeled friends in Delhi or in other similar cities is elitist and unwholesome.
The true nationalism for someone like him has to be wedded to the cause of socialism.
How does this idea of nationalism, therefore, reconcile with the nationalism of the Indian army who is fighting insurgencies in Kashmir and north eastern states where he had us believe that excesses have been committed by the indian army?
It did not surprise many when he, like a true flag bearer of communism, decried the indian army in his original speech, now hailed as a master piece by his fellow communists.
In a speech, which he made after he came out of jail, he brought nuance to his earlier unvarnished and raw speech though by saying that the indian army is fighting a war for the capitalist ruling class of this country.
The distinction showed his nuanced switch from outright condemnation of the army to berating them for carrying capitalist’s burden.
Kanahiya like a true politician (rather in the making) has changed colours. The only spot that has remained unchanged in this leopard of man, as it were, is his love for unadulterated socialism.
Kanahiya’s speech before and after jail sentence does not reveal as much as perhaps the rousing reception he got on his return to JNU. His idea of nationalism, admittedly, is receiving traction.
Those who crossed fence to be with him have pitched for his brand of nationalism. And their number does not seem insignificant.
Similar stance reversals have been shown by Umar Khalid and Anirban Banerjee. Their speeches before they were picked up by the police were more in the mould of war cries underpinned on the themes of socialism. They were against the idea of the state of india.
Their noises on their return from jail have been directed against the government of the day. They have let out war cries against the ideology espoused by RSS. This subtle shift is revealing.
This revealation may after all be not without a reason. If these students were so enamoured of what they were saying, they should have stuck to it in entirety even after being let off.
The fact that they have had to change the narrative slightly shows that some of it may have been on design and not spontaneous. This doesn’t portend well for two reasons.
One, it could be that our universities are being infiltrated by the thought processes that may be targeting the gullible heart and minds of our students and proselyting them to an ideology that is inimical to the idea of india.
Second, this rewriting of the idiom of nationalism to create an alternative idea of nationalism that weakens the idea of india in favour of the misplaced and now forgotten internationalism of the debunked socialists may be an attempt to weaken india through these fifth columnists.
This subversion of the idea of nationalism though has been taken too far now. There is Asauddin Owaisi who says that he would not chant bharat mata ki jai even if his neck were chopped off. Then there is Waris Pathan, who has been suspended from Maharashtra assembly for not chanting Bharat Mata Ki Jai.
This carefully choreographed upping of ante on what real nationalism is appears to be linked to the jnu events. It appears that the stage was cleverly set at JNU to gradually unfold in assemblies and media studios later.
If Owaisi’s outburst did not have the theatrics of JNU backdrop, it would not have gathered steam. JNU provided the other ‘nationalists’ a platform to reinvent the new definition of nationalism away from the straight and narrow definition of nationalism that all of us have known all this while.
For multitude of Indians, nationalism has meant unbridled love for mother india. And chanting bharat mata ki jai has been an easy and acceptable way of showing it.
The unedifying discourse of squalor, poverty and unequal access to education and health care has also tormented them.
But nationalism has not been sought to be undermined by them in the manner Kanahiya and his comrades have done. They have rather found ways and means to help redeem the story of want and deprivation in india.
This obnoxious insurrection to show that their nationalism is the only true nationalism is perfidious.
Kanaihya with his sublime oratory may have caught the imagination of a few constituents in this country, but those who silently fight the extremists on our borders swear by a nationalism that has helped secured this country so far.
Kanaihya and those who stand beside or behind him have whipped up hysteria which at first may appear more than reasonable, but has a potential to unravel the idea of india, if it is not calibrated.
This new grammar of nationalism may be fashionable and catch the fancy of very many given that it holds out the promise of economic and political equalization across the classes. But socialism has not served its masters anywhere. It has only hastened the ruin of the states.
The idea of framing the debate of nationalism in the context of my nationalism vs your nationalism and socialism vs capitalism and class war is self defeating.
Nationalism has only one definition and that, quite plainly, in our context is accepting the idea of india as rooted in the constitution.
Those who have vowed to destroy the Indian State and replace it with a totalitarian system have no moral right to develop a new language of nationalism in this country. Somebody needs to take the floor in jnu and say as much to those who have recently returned from jail yatra.
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel