Tharoor makes a case for civic nationalism

In his new work of non-fiction, The Battle of Belonging, Shashi Tharoor maps the evolution of nationalism and examines the social, economic and political factors that contribute to its changing interpretations. Taking on the Indian Right Wing’s idea of nationalism, he writes about the dangers of exclusionary politics. What could be a substitute for this ethno-religious nationalism? In an interview with Khaleej Times, he makes a case for civic nationalism that “derives from the consent of citizens to participate in a free and democratic society”.

Shashi Tharoor’s engagement with evolution of ideas and ideologies that have come to shape our political landscape make for insightful reading. In his new book, The Battle of Belonging, Tharoor not only maps the evolution of nationalism, but also spotlights the dangers of ethno-religious nationalism. In an interview with Khaleej Times, he talks about why inclusionary politics is the need of the hour. Excerpts:

In what way did the setbacks of globalisation pave the way for return of nationalism?

A globalist viewpoint, which encompasses broader support for globalisation, has become unfashionable because of the growing phenomenon of hypernationalism, which is, by definition, exclusionary and restrictive. It asserts that one’s country must be supreme over others, and that interaction with any foreign country is a zero-sum game. The globalist sensibility I speak of is one that seeks to bring countries together in pursuit of the common good.

It is important, however, to recognise that globalisation has led to winners and losers, and to resentment among the losers. We must work to ensure a more equitable form of globalisation, but developing an inward-looking, isolationist mindset is not the way to do so. We have seen much of that attitude on display, from Brexit to the American withdrawal from the WHO and other international agreements. Ugly xenophobia has, unfortunately, risen in the wake of such decisions.

The Covid pandemic seems to have inaugurated an era of “de-globalisation”. This will not help create a fairer and more connected world.

Nationalism, historically, has enabled important political change.

In the book I quote the Israeli writer Yuval Noah Harari, who views nationalism as a great “fiction”, developed to help human societies integrate. This sort of view goes back to the idea of the nation as an “imagined community” — and anything you can imagine is, of course, a sort of fiction. However, this would overlook the significant effects that the idea of the nation has on our lives, and the very tangible fervour that nationalism arouses in so many people. Liberals are suspicious about any ideology that seems to promote hostility to others, especially when nationalism leads people to fight and kill in its name.

Patriotism and nationalism are different — a patriot is prepared to die for his country, whereas a nationalist is ready to kill for his state. As a liberal, I believe in

“civic nationalism”, a nationalism anchored not in identity (religion, ethnicity, language and other immutable markers you are born into), but in constitutions and institutions, where all citizens are treated equally, irrespective of identity, and their differences are accepted and respected.

Patriotism and nationalism

A patriotic nationalism was what inspired the long struggle for independence, with a manner of thinking rooted in India’s time-honoured civilisational traditions of inclusivity, social justice, religious tolerance, and the desire to forge a society that allowed individuals to flourish without barriers thrown up from birth. This worldview has been distorted with time, with a new dominant narrative that thrives on exclusionary, aggressive, sectarian Hindutva nationalism. We must continue to fight against this idea of ethno-religious nationalism, and assert that love and inclusivity remain at the heart of what it means to be a patriot. To my mind, “patriotism” is about loving your country because it is yours, because you belong to it and it belongs to you, the way you would love your mother, without claiming she is perfect.

Whereas the nationalism being promoted in India today is a totalising vision that excludes those who don’t subscribe to it, that demands allegiance and brooks no dissent. Plenty of Indians are fighting to reclaim the inclusive view of nationalism and patriotism I describe in the book.

The idea of civic nationalism

Civic nationalism is based around the core tenets of representative democracy, freedom of expression, constitutionalism, and liberal democratic institutions. Crucially, it emerges from a voluntary participation in civic society. In India, it is this sort of nationalism that is guaranteed by our proudly secular constitution, which outlines the fundamental role of representative democracy and liberal institutions in Indian society. It’s crucial that this brand of nationalism, which best safeguards individual rights, is promoted and protected above all others.

This sort of nationalism, by its very definition, an inclusive, all-encompassing ideology, and stands in total opposition to a political mindset that seeks to exclude people based on any immutable aspect of their identity (religion, colour, caste, language and so on). The ethno-religious nationalism of Hindutva would end up denying India to many Indians — a situation no patriot could ever accept.

You maintain that the Indian soul has not been partitioned yet. What keeps you hopeful?

There is no lack of trying on the part of the Bharatiya Janata Party, which has consistently attempted to instigate that very partition over the course of the last six years. Its worst excesses, however, have been met with derision and strong backlash: most notably, the Citizenship Amendment Act, which, it is clear, is loathed by a huge portion of Indians, crossing boundaries of religion. There are a large number of Indians working today to oppose the forces of division, and I have no doubt that our efforts will succeed.

The nationalism being promoted in India today is a totalising vision that excludes those who don’t subscribe to it.