Who Are Anti-Nationals?

Bhaskar Majumder

In international relations, the question of whether a resident citizen of a particular sovereign state is considered a national is straightforward–one cannot avoid being a nationalist. Sovereignty is essential for the security of the resident people, and ‘people’ refers to the nation. Therefore, the concepts of national security and the nationalism of the people are interconnected.

Recently, some individuals have begun to redefine nationalism, distancing themselves from the perspectives articulated by thinkers like Rabindranath Tagore and others. These individuals, often described as troublemakers, have unfortunately gained the approval of the core state, which is reflected in its troubling silence on the matter. This silence may stem from the reluctant acceptance of Hindu nationalism as a broader definition of nationalism. In a political democracy, the rule of the majority is frequently interpreted as an endorsement of Hindu nationalism in governance.

Nationalism is often unspoken and remains implicit in the everyday practices of individuals within interdependent roles. For instance, the teacher teaches, the farmer cultivates, the industrial worker labours in the factory, and the painter creates–all of which reflect nationalism because they contribute to the foundation of people’s lives. Therefore, the essence of nationalism lies in ensuring the safety and well-being of individuals within a sovereign nation-state.

Does this imply that no one has the right to question the prevailing system? Or those individuals cannot disagree and propose alternative ways to improve life? Here are two examples–one from a distant past and another recent–that encompass both internal and international contexts.

The years 1946-47 marked a significant period of decolonisation for British India, particularly during the communal riots of 1946. These riots involved two religious groups, reflecting the tensions surrounding the impending partition of British India into India and Pakistan. The partition displaced many residents and disrupted their sense of nationalism. It raises a logical question: how could a group of people, forced to abandon their geographic roots, transit from a sense of ‘total nationalism’ to ‘partial nationalism’?

Through conversations with elderly Hindu Bengalis from East Pakistan after 1947, this writer learned that many continued to feel connected to East Bengal and were willing to return, albeit without fully grasping the implications of such a decision. The riots that foreshadowed partition also resulted in the loss of land, property, and important documents for many refugees.

Interestingly, some people chose to remain in East Pakistan until the 1971 War, a conflict that was allegedly provoked by West Pakistan, which ultimately led to the emergence of sovereign Bangladesh. The interplay of riots, independence, partition, and war illustrates one outcome in 1947 and another in 1971. Innocent people have always been the collateral damage of these events.

One may be puzzled about how and when nationalism became an “agnipariksha” for either the core state or the individuals involved during that time, and even afterwards, as refugees sought their “new residence” in West Bengal. After all, expressing nationalism necessitates a flag, which is typically provided by the sovereign state. The refugees transitioned from the Pakistan flag to the Indian flag post-1947.

A more recent example occurred in November 2024, when the electronic media in India announced the arrest of a Hindu religious “guru” in Bangladesh, leading to subsequent turmoil. One faction of Hindu nationalists began to portray this as an atrocity against Hindus in Bangladesh, with some even suggesting the possibility of waging war on Bangladesh, reminiscent of the 1971 war. This faction went so far as to compare military tanks and other weaponry between the two sovereign neighbouring countries. It is important to remember that post-1971, Bangladesh is also a sovereign state.

A few years back India’s Hindu nationalism required hatred for Pakistan, chanting ‘joy siaram’, chanting ‘bharatmataki joy’ and also cow-nationalism. Failure to adhere to any one or a combination of these practices could provoke anger from rowdy elements, potentially leading to lynching and other forms of violence. In November 2024, many influencers began abusing the Chief Minister of West Bengal, possibly under the mistaken belief that West Bengal is a sovereign state. It is important to remind these individuals that international issues, even those of a humanitarian nature, require the involvement of a recognised sovereign state–which West Bengal is not–and must be addressed according to established international rules and regulations.

The definition of Indian nationalism has boundaries that do not extend into incivility, even when using harsh adjectives and threatening punishment for those deemed “anti-national” on platforms like Facebook and Twitter. While social media does not significantly shape the opinions of the vast majority of people in India, the disruptive influence of these platforms cannot be ignored. The issue becomes more complicated and flexible when it receives support from the state or when these social media influencers are encouraged by the state to use its terminology.

What type of nationalism is appropriate today? Should one speak against Bangladesh or foster divisions between Hindus and Muslims? Isn’t it more fitting for the largest democracy in the world to take a measured approach and develop soft diplomatic relations with neighbouring countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka? All these nations are members of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), and they share a unified voice.

In truth narrow nationalism lacks value in international relations. The same applies to democracy at home, where political differences are inherent in the voting process.

Nationalism is the love that people have for the country they reside in. If it is genuine love, it cannot be coerced; anything that is forced is not authentic. Nationalism should not be an agenda dictated by the state; rather, it resides in the minds of the people and can even transcend national boundaries. Cosmopolitanism is not contrary to nationalism. People should not allow those who engage in pseudo-nationalism to operate a parallel state.

[Bhaskar Majumder, Professor (Retd.), G.B.Pant Social Science Institute, Allahabad–211019]

Back to Home Page

Frontier
Vol 57, No. 27, Dec 29, 2024 - Jan 4, 2025