Patriotism versus Nationalism

Dr. Shashi Tharoor

A struggle is going on between the two ideas of India. One is based on the narrow concept of Indianness, whereas the other, broader and more inclusive, points towards an India anchored in the institutional and constitutional pillars of civic nationalism. Twenty-five years away from its centenary, all citizens, patriot or nationalist, will have to choose the India they want to help build.

n our 75th year of freedom, Independent India finds itself divided between the advocates of ’Hindu nationalism‘ and those who cling to an increasingly derided secular pluralism. In the new Hindutva dispensation, dissent against the transformation of the state is denounced not merely as negative but as anti-national and unpatriotic. Who, then, is a patriot, and who a nationalist?

In many Indian languages, the distinction between patriotism and nationalism is expressed through terms derived from Sanskrit; in both Hindi and Malayalam, nationalism is ’rashtrabhakti‘, devotion to the state or polity, whereas patriotism is ’deshbhakti‘, connoting love of homeland. A patriot celebrates what he is born to, not as something inherently superior to other places or forms of being, but as right for him because it is his.

Patriotism can be seen in things such as the pang of nostalgia for one’s own patch of land, the space closest to one’s own sense of being; singing of the national anthem at international sporting events; the pride in your country’s athletes winning medals at the Olympic Games; the celebration of a country’s Independence Day, or similar national occasions; growing misty-eyed over a familiar old song, a garment worn, or a typical dish served; and in the admiration expressed for servicemen and women for their courage, dedication and heroism in keeping a country and its residents safe.

Patriotism is far less ideologically-driven than nationalism, takes the successes of others in its stride and does not involve the same destructive devotion that nationalism does. A patriot loves his country as he loves his mother— because he belongs to it, and it belongs

to him. Patriotism does not demand perfection, nor does it require to be consummated in the state. Indeed, as the writer Badri Raina puts it in an article published in Mainstream Weekly in June last year, patriotism leaves us free to value other peoples’ love for their own countries, ”and free to find fault with what we may be lacking without letting bravado or false claims distort those realities. Nationalism, like religious faith, permits no such room. It asks of us that we propagate that we outshine all other peoples, cultures, climes, countries in every sphere of life because of some divine origin or exclusive right to perfection…Patriotism accepts the great reality of diversity; nationalism seeks to obliterate diversity and aims to create the world in its own abstract theology of supremacy.” Patriotism, the older of the two words, dates back to the seventeenth century. It has long impelled passionate behaviour in defence of national ideas, which has led some to confuse it with nationalism; after all, patriotism has prompted tens of thousands of people to accept untold sacrifices, even give up their lives, for their country. But while a patriot is prepared to die for his country, the nationalist is willing to kill for his state. Scholars across a vast literature have identified five major elements in nationalism: the yearning for national unity (and even uniformity); the requirement of exclusive loyalty; the striving for national (rather than individual) freedom; the aspiration for exclusiveness and distinctiveness; and the quest for honour and prestige among nations. This last is where the biggest problem Patriotism is far less ideologicallydriven than nationalism, takes the successes of others in its stride and does not involve the same destructive devotion that nationalism does

lies, for this quest for honour and prestige easily becomes an urge for domination. When a nation’s dignity requires the defeat of others, when your honour is seen through the need to assert your superiority to others, nationalism can easily degenerate into chauvinism, belligerence and the rejection of coexistence.

Whereas nationalists believe that their nation and what it represents is unchallengeable, patriots love their country not out of misplaced vanity but out of love, not just because of its attractiveness but in spite of its flaws. Patriots can acknowledge their countries’ failings and strive to correct them; nationalists believe there are none, and refuse to accept any that are laid out before them. As Raina writes, “Patriotism acknowledges that where I live is my beloved space, warts and all...It recognises that our streets are shabby, our lanes full of clutter, our habits shoddy, our resistance to rationality often grossly debilitating, our defiance of law a routine habit of mind, our male chauvinism shameful and violent, our casteism or racism or communalism deleterious to the most desirable ideals of human rights and human oneness…Patriotism recognises that things may be better in other countries”, and yet, patriots love their land with all its imperfections and work to remedy them.

George Orwell, the English writer, articulated the difference between patriotism and nationalism most effectively in his celebrated 1945 essay on nationalism: “By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose

Whereas nationalists believe that their nation and what it represents is unchallengeable, patriots love their country not out of misplaced vanity but out of love, not just because of its attractiveness but in spite of its flaws of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.” In my recent book, The Battle of Belonging, I have argued that India’s is a civic nationalism, anchored in the Constitution and its liberal democratic institutions, a nationalism of belonging rather than of blood. Speaking for myself, when I refer to my own nationalism, spurn any non-Indian allegiance, and proudly wear a tri-colour lapel-pin every day, I am really subscribing to a patriotism that rests on this conception of India—a love of my country because it is mine, anchored in the institutional and constitutional pillars of civic nationalism. To me, Indian nationalism derives its political legitimacy not from ethnicity, religion, language, culture, or any of the immutable trappings that people acquire from birth, but from the consent and active participation of our citizens, as free members of a democratic polity. For our nationalism to rise above the ’HindiHindu[tva]-Hindustan‘ idea of India proclaimed by the present ruling dispensation, we must preserve the idea of India embedded in the Republic our founding leaders created—sustained by liberal democratic institutions, constitutionalism that guarantees freedom of speech and association, and representative democracy that empowered the individual citizen irrespective of caste or creed, region or religion, language or literacy. When our present rulers tell us that to disagree with them is

anti-national, or that to be a true Indian one must be a Hindi-speaking Hindu, we can answer by pointing to the Constitution, whose idea of India they so shamelessly disregard. The true Indian patriot will tell you that in our democracy you do not really need to agree all the time — except on the ground rules of how you will disagree.

Dividing our people into majority and minority, Hindu and Muslim, Hindi-speaker and Tamil, nationalist and anti-national, is fundamentally un-Indian and fails to reflect the real nature of our society. The suggestion that only a Hindu, and only a certain kind of Hindu, can be an authentic Indian is an affront to the very premise of Indian nationalism. Uniformity comes at the price of unity; the insistence on conformity destroys the imperative of consensus. An India that denies itself to some of us could end up being denied to all of us.

There is a struggle currently taking place between two ideas of India. One rests on a narrow conception of Indianness; it is intolerant of difference and suspicious of diversity, and seeks revenge upon history by perpetrating new wrongs today. The other is broader, capacious and inclusive, accepting of difference and embracing diversity, secure that these are best accommodated in democratic institutions and processes sustained by our constitutionallyguaranteed freedoms. Which idea prevails will determine the character of the India that will celebrate its centenary a quarter of a century from now.

Our nationalist heroes created a nation built on an ideal of pluralism and freedom: we have given passports to their dreams. On this auspicious occasion of Deepavali, a triumph of light over darkness and that of good over evil, let us affirm our determination to fight for an idea of Indian nationalism that embraces diversity, accepts difference and celebrates plurality. Only that kind of inclusive nationalism will allow every single Indian, of every faith, region or mother tongue, the freedom to be a proud patriot.

Dr. Shashi Tharoor is an Indian former international diplomat, politician, writer and public intellectual who has been serving as Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha, from Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, since 2009.