A GUARANTOR OF LIBERALISM

A STRONG NATION-STATE, FOUNDED ON PATRIOTIC BELIEF, IS THE SUREST DEFENCE OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

AN UNFORTUNATE TROPE among the global liberal elite is the demonisation of patriotism. Often, extremist nationalist groups of the 20th century, such as the Nazis, or the Italian Fascists, are used as examples to try and make us wary of patriotism and patriots. Of course, the Nazis, Italian Fascists and their ilk merit strong opprobrium. But using them repeatedly to tar patriotism itself is, honestly, unfortunate. What would you call those who use the examples of Mao and Stalin—the worst mass-murderers of the 20th century—to tar all Marxists, or those who cite genocidal maniacs like Timur, Alauddin Khilji and Aurangzeb to argue that all of Islam is fanatical? Patently biased, right? Why is it different for patriotism?

One may argue—why bother with liberal harangues on patriotism when liberalism itself seems to be losing the argument globally and nationalists seem to be winning? Because in this age of global information flows, high immigration and multi-cultural exchange, liberalism is needed more than ever. And a democratic nation-state is the best defender of liberalism in the present day. It is critical for liberals to realise that it is in their own selfish interest to defend patriotism as well as the nation-state.

Why is the democratic nation-state important for liberalism? Without the order enforced by a strong institution, the rights of individuals become extremely difficult to uphold. Take child rights: a child’s right to life, security, education, food and health. If the institution

of the family itself collapses, no amount of ‘societal or activist’ intervention can adequately compensate. Child rights become theoretical in the absence of a family that protects and supports children. Recall the Rotherham sexual abuses. Over a 20-year period beginning in the late 1990s, approximately 1,400 young, mostly white girls in this British town experienced systematic rape, abuse, violence and forced abortions at the hands of mostly Pakistani-British men. It’s horrific. Such a large number of young, vulnerable girls, abused over such a long period. It is believed that many in the local police and activist circles knew, but remained silent. They feared being accused of racism, keeping in mind the identity of the criminals. But the real shocker lies elsewhere— what were the families of these poor girls doing? Why didn’t they protect their children? The first line of defence of young, vulnerable children is their parents. But unfortunately, often in the blind pursuit of individualism, family structures have seen an erosion in so-called modern times. And as a result, these children didn’t have the sanctuary

of home and family.

Rights cannot survive in a vacuum. They need strong institutions to protect them. And just like children need committed parents, individual citizens need a strong nation-state to protect their rights.

It can be argued that not all parents are caring and protective. But most parents are. And therefore, we would agree that a strong family is good for a child. Similarly, there are authoritarian nation-states that oppress their citizens. But data indicates clearly that democratic nation-states, on average, protect the individual rights of citizens. Institutions with the power, tools and motivation (driven by citizen votes and democratic protests) to guarantee individual rights are the basis for liberalism. A modern democratic nation-state is the best example available today of a political organisation that protects individual human rights, as compared to any other form of government in history. As Winston Churchill pithily remarked: “…democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

If a democratic nation-state, imperfect as it is, is the best guarantor for liberalism and individual rights, then how does one build it? A nation-state, especially a democratic one, is built on a social contract; on the collective belief of a sufficiently large number of people that they are a nation.

So, what makes this collective belief possible? In one simple word: Patriotism.

By providing the emotional energy for a nation-state, patriotism also becomes a guarantor for the protection of individual rights and liberalism.

Patriotism can be built on various models. The European model is built on ethnicity, language and religion (different versions of Christianity). The West Asian model is built on a mix of authoritarianism (of a monarchy or the army) and religion (Sunni or Shia Islam; though, admittedly, some states, like Egypt, were secular till some time ago). Nation-states, in the basic design of their nationhood, are fundamentally exclusionary. They define themselves by what they are NOT. And this aspect, in the minds of most liberals, makes the nation-state an enemy of liberalism. Many European states have, no doubt, become far more inclusive over the recent decades. But this shaking up of the basis of their nationhood, in terms of ethnicity, language and religion, has also shaken their concept of nationhood itself. Many among the modern global liberal elite speak of a post-nationalism world. John Lennon “Imagine”d us living as one, some day. Beautiful. But, as yet, a dream that seems unrealisable in the foreseeable future. That someday is heartbreakingly far away. At this point in time, it seems that liberalism and individual rights cannot exist without the guarantee of a nation-state.

This is where the Indian model appears very interesting. India is one of the few countries in the world—besides probably China and Japan—that can lay claim to being a ‘civilisational state’. This is a fundamentally different model: a collective belief in an ancient civilisational way in which we can imagine India. Some deracinated Indians may believe that India was created by the British, before which we didn’t exist as a nation. This is an incomplete understanding of nation-building. Our nationhood is not of the European or West-Asian exclusionary style; and this is what gives strength to our model in this modern, multi-cultural world. Our nation is not defined by one language. It is not defined by one religion. It is not defined by one ethnicity. It is defined by a civilisation, in which multiple languages, religions and ethnicities have lived together for centuries—in some cases, for millennia—developing bonds and a deep attachment to this great land. We are not defined by who we are NOT. We are defined by who we are: inheritors of a great civilisation that is like our Mother.

This is what makes us, to use Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s term, an ‘anti fragile’ nation. We can very easily adapt to the rapid pace of change that is a given in these times, and yet keep our core together. Our patriotism is not exclusionary. And our belief in our nation is ancient. As the millen

THE NATION-STATE IS IMPORTANT FOR LIBERALISM BECAUSE IN THE ABSENCE OF A STRONG INSTITUTION TO ENFORCE ORDER, THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS BECOME EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO UPHOLD

nia-old Vishnu Purana has recorded so beautifully: ‘Uttaram yat samudrasya himadreschaiva dakshinam. Varsham tad bharatam nama bharati yatra santatih (North of the ocean, and south of the Himalaya, lies the noble nation of Bharat, and there live the descendants of Bharat)’.

Not only is the belief in our nationhood ancient, it is also deeply liberal and inclusive. India has accepted refugees from across the world. In ancient times, she gave refuge to the Parsees escaping Arab attacks and Jews fleeing Roman oppression. Even today, Hindu pilgrims visit the Ajmer Sharif and Muslims worship at the Venkateswara temple.

We are tough. Unlike many other ancient cultures that died out over the last 2,000 years, we fought back brutal invaders and stubbornly survived. We were also immensely successful. As British economist Angus Maddison noted, India’s GDP was the highest in the world for 15 of the past 20 centuries. India has more non-printing press manuscripts—3 million—than the rest of the ancient world combined; this is a marker of the massive knowledge production of the ancient Indians.

Armed with pride, powered with a rebellious innovative spirit, and infused with the spirit of patriotism, India can take its rightful place once again in the comity of nations. And if our motherland prospers, so shall we. If we infuse ourselves with positive patriotism, we will revive a society that is liberal, powerful and inclusive.

A patriotic spirit towards our ancient motherland is not only a sentimental position to take; it is also the smart thing to do. It is not just my heart that swells with pride—even my mind gets focused when I say these beautiful words: Bharat Mata ki Jai! Glory to Mother India!

NATION-STATES, IN THEIR BASIC DESIGN, DEFINE THEMSELVES IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY ARE NOT. THIS, IN THE MINDS OF MOST LIBERALS, MAKES NATION-STATES AN ENEMY OF LIBERALISM