Can I be a Nationalist Patriot and Humanist?

 I often think of this and the best exposition of this debate was the one between two of the greatest sons of India, Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore and Mahatma Gandhi. They were very cordial to each other but differed on the subject of nationalism vs humanism. Before I get into this debate I will try and simply define the three terms in simple language juxtaposed against dictionary definition. 

Nationalism is defined as an identification and support for one's nation to the exclusion and detriment of other nations. The simple meaning is I love my nation good or bad and my love blinds me to such an extent that without question I will hate and attack the other who is not in line with my nation's thinking or actions. There is often in this a political identity shaped by either religion, race, caste or cult which is shaped by some true or false hatred of the other based on real or imagined wrong of the past. 

Patriotism is defined as a love for one's country of a kind which is genuine love for values and good things a nation stands for. This simply means love for one's country without turning a blind eye to its faults, because it means that your love is such that you want your country to overcome its weaknesses to become an ideal modern nation state. A land where individual freedom is guaranteed and certain responsibilities are also implied. 

Humanism is a rationalist outlook to human values based on the importance of individual freedom. In simple terms it transcends boundaries of narrow community and nation and appeals to the highest values in human beings. It stands for universal brotherhood and holistic approach based on real education and cultural growth. 

A nation is made by it's people, their character and the collection of the value systems embodied in the people. However, as a country the Indian nation has a lot going for it in terms of depth of thought humanity and culture it has given to itself and the world at large. This country has given to the world many religions and personalities and their contribution to the world far outweighs the so called narrow nationalist identity which we want to defined by. India sees herself as a thought leader. If I were to name 5 persons I would name the following persons Gautama Buddha, Swami Vivekananda, Shankaracharya, Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore and Mahatma Gandhi. At a mythical level maybe the avatara of King Rama and Lord Krishna along with sages like Sage Valmiki, Vyasa, Kapila and so many others can also be added to this list. 

Can a nation which has produced such towering personalities allow itself to be defined in narrow terms as a Hindu nation a theocratic state  a mirror image of Pakistan? My answer is a resounding no and for me this was the projected posturing in the theater of the present Operation Sindoor. This name was coined to counter the communal overtones of the Pahalgam terrorist attack where Hindus were identified and killed, there was the lone Muslim Kashmiri killed for trying to protect his Hindu tourist brethren. India held its daily press briefings creating the visual optics of women power in terms of Wing Commander Vyomika Singh and Colonel Sofiya Qureshi as symbols of gender emancipation and strong secular credentials. The widespread condemnation of these attacks in Jammu & Kashmir, on account of either plain fatigue or yearning for peace or maybe an acceptance of India as their own country proved that present day India has not succumbed to the widespread manipulation of the majority to other the minority. The contribution of the founding fathers of India to forge a syncretic, diverse but plural entity, even if imposed as a top down exercise has ensured that India did not get torn by communal strife as could have happened a few decades ago. 

The nation united and rallied to support the PM of India and even his critics acknowledge that he was successful in raising the bar and escalating the cost of Pakistan to try and get away with these non military operations. As patriots we applauded the restraint exercised by our armed forces and the technological advances of the air attack and defence system which could do the job without loss of life and damage. It has been rumoured we lost one Rafael jet nearly worth Rs 2000 crores or above however some damage in a risky war is likely. As a nationalist, I lauded the Indian forces, but as a patriot I reserved the right to take note what India was doing was playing a high risk game with a possibility of it becoming a nuclear war. While we have consistently raised the bar in terms of retaliation, the possibility of now not responding to another attack is almost zero. The political stakes for any Government in India in the foreseeable future of not retaliating are such that it will require extraordinary courage to pursue a peaceful settlement. If this kind of operation proves a deterrent and ensures that terrorism comes to an end, I will accept that the present Indian strategy has succeeded but my fear is that emulating Israel should not land us in a situation where we have to deal with two hostile enemies, China and Pakistan and we are distracted from the primary job of creating wealth and prosperity for our people.

Humanity and human values of universal love, peace and fraternity seem remote and utopian in this fractured world, yet I am optimistic as never in the history of the world we have seen the kind of stability that we experience today. The forces of globalisation and economic development are the antidote to violence and narrow identity politics and the sooner we align nationalism, patriotism and humanism and harness them for universal peace and development the better are the chances peace and prosperity.  

So if we take concern for the country on one axis and the concern for people and their rights to criticise you can get some definition of the above terms. 

However I would like to dwell on the Gandhi Tagore debate and their differing approach coupled with mutual respect, where Gandhi called Tagore Gurudev and Tagore bestowed the title of Mahatma "great Soul" on Gandhi. The approach of Gandhi the resistor who believed in non-cooperation using the weapon of nonviolence was different. Gandhi had the tough job of making the movement against the British a mass struggle and to do that abstract ideas and education was tough to use, so symbols of Charkha and boycott of foreign  clothes, bonfires were needed to demonstrate the problem to the masses. He wanted to teach self reliance by using the spinning wheel and charkha as symbols of resistance. This was bitterly opposed by Tagore who believed that Universal love, a holistic approach with cooperation and an emphasis on education and cultural renaissance was needed rather than a utilitarian materialistic approach to get freedom. The use of Charkha and bonfires of foreign goods was frowned at by Tagore who felt that such approaches isolated India from the cause of humanity which Tagore held dear. 

I feel we require the wisdom and sagacity of both because both in their work had demonstrated the effectiveness of their approach. The classic battle of Karma Yoga vs Jnana Yoga was being played out but both were meant to achieve the same goal. 

  

Vispi Jokhi