India’s idiot nationalism REPLY TO ALL

Our debate is not about facts. It is about faith since our nationalism is akin to a religion

Debates on nationalism in India will always be won by what is called the right. The word right is used to describe a position underpinned by Hindutva. It is, however, incorrect to use right as a substitute for conservative in our country. Conservatism in the West has a long and noble tradition. Conservatism insists on the protection of individual rights and civil liberties from the intrusive state. Here it breaks from Hindutva, which puts the rights of an anthropomorphic and sentient nation (Bharat mata) over those of its human citizens.

This is unique to us as an idolatrous society which aspires to modernity. It is difficult to think of another people who think of their nation as a person with the capacity to be offended. This particular conception of Bharat mata is held, whether subliminally or overtly, by the vast majority of Indians. This is why the nationalism debate is not really a debate, if by debate one refers to something where both sides are open to having their view changed.

Hindutva is vulgar. Vulgar carries a meaning in aesthetics but in Latin it actually means something popular among the masses (Hindi varg has the same root) without the element of aesthetic judgment. Hindutva has no problem with unlawful behaviour because its consensus is that certain things are unacceptable. That’s another reason why the nationalism debate is closed.

Hindu nationalism openly advertises its willingness to violate the Indian Constitution — Mandir wahin banayenge — and thinks it is an act of patriotism to beat up students who insult the anthropomorphic state. Hindutvawadis will be stunned to be told their actions are unpatriotic because they find it difficult to see the nation as a legal entity. My observation is that, in fact, they cannot do this. That is why they are incapable of losing the debate on nationalism and free speech.

The reductive nature of Hindutva’s view has been carried into popular politics under a great leader. The prime minister’s banal pronouncements, delivered with terrific energy and conviction, become high oratory not because of the quality of the orator but that of the audience, which is plugged into the idiom.

The ancient Greeks had a name for the mass of people who thought in simple terms. This word is idiot. Idiots are thought to be people “so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning”. But, in Greek, idiotes actually means the common citizen, who, not being very educated, was seen as incapable of nuance. The word idiom shares a root with idiot. Of course, those who think about this must then come to suspect such phrases as “collective wisdom”.

Plato’s Socrates is full of contempt for democracy. This is because in Athenian democracy leaders were chosen randomly by lot from the general population. And Socrates had zero confidence in the common man, whom he regularly engaged in the agora.

Socrates engaging Indians on the streets of Delhi and watching news television would conclude there is an unthinking consensus in favour of nationalism in India. From this vantage point, words can become anti-national. Slogans can threaten unity. It is so pervasive that much of this Hindutva resides also in the Congress party. The Bharatiya Janata Party holds and expresses the clearest vision of it, but it is not the only party to feel that citizens demanding civil liberties and their free speech rights are a nuisance. Some of the worst laws that India has — from the Armed Forces Special Powers Act to the Coal Bearing Areas Act — are Congress’ gift to the nation. So we must accept that some of this idiot nationalism is wider than the following of Hindutva in the strict sense. And resign ourselves to the fact that there is no real political resistance to this idiot nationalism.

What recourse does a citizen outside this consensus have? There are not many remedies. Unlike in the United States, the media here is unified against the “anti-national”. The baniya clique (Bennett Coleman, Zee, the Birlas, the Ambanis) that owns and controls Indian media is properly conservative and not all of its proprietors are Hindutvawadi.

But they set great store by popularity and are most hesitant to defy the consensus because of their economic interest. Print may have some limited space to express the minority view but television, because of its ratings feedback loop, absolutely stands with the nationalists. The prejudices and hatreds expressed casually in the drawing room against dissenters may now be broadcast from the studio and are acceptable.

All this means we have almost no outlets where difference can be expressed. Our courts cannot be fully trusted to defend civil liberties because often the judges are unable to distance themselves from our nationalism. The quality of the jurist in India is often low, and the understanding of jurisprudence and liberalism that underpins it is often poor. Courts in such a place will show enthusiasm for imposing nationalism through ritual as is happening in our times.

The most important space for dissent, the place where Indians’ rights are being demanded, has become the university. We have looked at the environment in which very brave students in institutions in Delhi and across India are standing up and refusing to be bullied. What they are up against is impossible: A majority with closed minds that is not open to looking at any other point of view.

The word debate is used here when we talk about the debate on anti-nationals, but there’s no real debate in the sense of an exchange of views. The word debate comes from the French root meaning quarrel. But a debate is a civilised quarrel where one is open to changing one’s view in the face of evidence. Our nationalism debate is not about facts, it is about faith since our nationalism, with a goddess and the possibility of sacrilege, is akin to a religion.