Misinterpreting nationalism

BJP's swing to jingoism does not augur well

The political resolution adopted at the national executive meeting of the Bharatiya Janata Party or BJP in Delhi over the weekend is a testament to the party's recent disturbing drift towards hyper-nationalism. The resolution singled out for attack those "refusing to say 'Bharat Mata Ki Jai' in the name of freedom" saying that this was an "obligation" for citizens. Various BJP leaders expended on this theme subsequently. The party president, Amit Shah, declared that "criticism of the nation" was rife and would not be tolerated. Home Minister Rajnath Singh echoed these sentiments, saying that the BJP welcomed political criticism of the government, but not anything "against the nation". This followed the suspension from the Maharashtra Assembly of a legislator of the All-India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, or AIMIM, who had apparently refused to chant "Bharat Mata Ki Jai" along with his fellow legislators, reportedly preferring to substitute it with other nationalist chants.

This insistence that citizens' freedom does not extend to criticism of the nation is worrisome and wrong. The government cannot decide what counts as criticism of its actions, and what counts as criticism of "the nation". Indeed, what should register as "criticism" of the nation? Does the recitation of basic ways in which India has not yet sufficiently advanced count? Or admitting that India may have failed some of its marginal groups, or saying that it has not always behaved in internal conflicts in a manner living up to its highest ideals? Declaring that citizens who raise such questions are enemies of the nation is a destructive, and not a constructive form of nationalism.

Certainly, it appears that the BJP has come to the conclusion that it is well-served by becoming the party of hyper-nationalism. The positive response to its rhetoric following the crackdown on a few slogan-shouters in Jawaharlal Nehru University has emboldened it - and intimidated the opposition Congress, which joined the BJP in voting to suspend the Maharashtra MLA. But no responsible political party should stoke the fires of destructive nationalism for transitory political gain. Freedom of speech must be respected except where there is a direct exhortation to violence - "criticism of the nation" does not count. And speech within a legislative Assembly, or Parliament, is surely the most protected of all. The legislator's choice to say or not say whatever slogans he wished should have been respected.

It is unfortunate that, even as the prime minister calls for the focus to stay on development, his party has clearly moved on. Less than two years into the government's term, many in the ruling dispensation seem to be of the opinion that talking of development will not be as electorally useful as hyper-nationalism. This does not augur well for the remaining three years of the BJP's term in office. Course correction is necessary - which must involve a recommitment at all levels of the party to development as well as a commitment to reform, and to an India where "criticism of the nation" does not bring down the wrath of the state.