Enforced nationalism can’t promote true culture

Today, we are living in a world where we are forced to stand for the national anthem at a movie theatre, we are told what we can and cannot eat, what we can and cannot see, and what we can and cannot speak about. Dissent, especially in the university space, is being curbed, and sloganeering and flag raising have become tests for nationalism. We have a 21-year-old University student who is subject to severe online hate, abuse, and threats, only because she dared express her views.

In any society, at any given point of time, there will always be people holding divergent views. Such views are integral and inevitable in a healthy, functioning democracy. Nowhere has this been better expressed than by the judgment of the Bombay High Court in F.A. Picture International v CBFC, where the court said: “History tells us that dissent in all walks of life contributes to the evolution of society. Those who question unquestioned assumptions contribute to the alteration of social norms. Democracy is founded upon respect for their courage. Any attempt by the state to clamp down on the free expression of opinion must hence be frowned upon.” Unfortunately, however, our institutions of learning are under attack today and there is a concerted attempt to destroy any independent thought. Today, sadly, in this country I love, if anyone holds a view that is different from the government’s “acceptable” view, they are immediately dubbed “antinational” or “desh-drohi”. This marker of “anti-national” is used to intimidate and browbeat voices of dissent and criticism, and, more worryingly, can be used to slap criminal charges of sedition against them. I would like to talk about two more issues connected to free speech and nationalism. The first relates to the Supreme Court’s (SC’s) order requiring all movie-goers to “stand up in respect” for the national anthem before the start of a movie to “instill a feeling within one a sense of committed patriotism and nationalism”. The order… seems contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. It is important to remember that the right to free speech and expression also includes the right not to speak or express ourselves. However, under the guise of “law”, the court has now stepped in and restricted our fundamental rights.

As Pratap Bhanu Mehta points out, the order fails to understand a distinction fundamental to liberal democracy — everything that is desirable or makes for a better citizen does not, and should not, be made compulsory. In fact, making something compulsory undermines the very meaning of that action and the respect that is normally accorded to it. It is a form of, what I would call, “conscripted nationalism”. Just as joining the Army is a noble career path, our lawmakers have rightly decided that India will not follow conscription, presumably because they believe in the liberty of the individual and the right to choice. Unfortunately, the judiciary thought otherwise.

I know of many people who considered themselves patriotic and would always stand when the national anthem was played. But the SC order has fundamentally changed their relationship with the anthem and has resulted in undermining its import. The order may have ensured that cinema audiences throughout are now standing before the national anthem plays, but what the court fails to have realised is that such an action is a performance motivated by fear of being beaten up rather than genuine respect and love for the anthem. In the end, it has undermined patriotism amongst fellow Indians. Similarly, preventing people from eating the food they want and effectively forcing a life choice on them undermines any feelings of nationalism and unity, and is another insidious form of cultural nationalism. Recently, (RSS chief) Mohan Bhagwat called for a national law against cow slaughter. But we must be wary of forcing a single ideology or way of living on the entire country, especially a country as diverse as India, where states such as Kerala or the various states in the North-East consider beef a staple part of their diet. One reads multiple reports about slaughterhouse crackdowns in UP, crackdowns that are primarily targeted at Muslim butchers, leaving people with fear, but without stable employment. We also recently had the horrific incident in Una, where seven Dalits were beaten by cow-vigilantes for alleged cow slaughter. And how can we forget the lynching of Akhlaq, who was suspected for allegedly storing and consuming beef, but where the first thing that was sent for forensic examination was not his body but the food that is in the fridge. Is this what the value of human life comes to?

Nationalism, when it devolves into such a form of cultural nationalism, is disturbing. I am personally very proud of being an Indian and of Indian culture. My wife and I practise Yoga. But I am not comfortable with the drive to make Yoga compulsory, to be foisted upon everyone, as if that were a badge of nationalism and Hindu pride.

Enforced nationalism cannot promote true culture. When a culture is arbitrarily prescribed and foisted, freedom of the creative spirit of man disappears or is suppressed. Only free souls can create abiding cultural values; they may physically belong to one particular class or geographically to a particular country; spiritually, they transcend all social and territorial limitations.

Conclusion

It has long been known that suppressing and censoring people’s speech will not remove the underlying simmering sentiment. In fact, it will only serve to alienate that section of the population further. If we have to give true meaning to the Prime Minister’s promise of “sabka saath, sabka vikaas”, then we must celebrate not only those who profess affection for the State but also those who believe that change is necessary or injustice is being committed. We cannot have an Orwellian situation where the government speaks in one language, but then fails to walk the talk. After all, as Desmond Tutu said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” The strength of a nation is not gauged by the uniformity of opinion of its citizens or a public profession of patriotism. The true strength of a nation is revealed when it does not feel threatened by its citizens expressing revolutionary views; when there is a free and open press that can criticise the government; and when citizens do not resort to violence against their fellow citizens, merely for expressing a contrary view. That is when we will have achieved liberty of speech. And that is when we will be truly free. I would like to end this speech with a short poem “Speak” from one of my favourite poets, Faiz Ahmed Faiz: Speak, for your lips are free; Speak, your tongue is still yours Your upright body is yours Speak, your life is still yours Speak, this little time is plenty Before the death of body and tongue Speak, for truth is still alive Speak, say whatever is to be said …