Copy of a note, written in a different social media forum:
Rabindranath Tagore wrote in one of his essays that Patriotism is narrow-mindedness. Indian media and 'intellectuals' have many times said Patriotism is one notch better than Nationalism. Looking at both the points together - does it mean that nationalism and the concept of nation state (with ear-marked boundaries) is ultra narrow-mindedness. Despite the power of the capital and the internet, land is still wired into psyche of mankind - it will remain so for another few generations. Keeping this is mind - protecting one's national identify (i.e. the physical boundary to start with) will remain critical for good many more decades to come. Lets try to think what would have happened to each one of us - if India would have lost one its wars with Pakistan or if China had occupied more land. The dynamics would have been quite different. Similar to Lt Gen Madan is talking about. As an Indian, I would love my country, country men and policy makers to be tolerant, accommodative, forgiving. But still, concepts of Nationalism are very relevant in India. Ignoring this will at best be naive, at worst it can put all of us our history and our future in danger. Let us try to see what has happened in South East Asia / South Asia over the past 1000 years and the answer will be clear. Except the last 70 years, for the rest last 1000 years, the Indian identity was largely fractured (except for about 100 odd years between Akbar's to Aurangazeb's rule) and Indians generally divided. If we objectively analyse the trends during this period in terms of a) demographics b) prosperity c) scientific discoveries - the answers will be stark. India needs to stay together for many more years. We need respect the concept of Nation state and the symbols of nationalism associated with it.
Re-joinder 1:
We have not become a post modern race entirely yet. Many concepts of the modern era are still relevant. While, at a core and at its best a human mind is post modern in character; there are large swathes of human mass which are not even modern. The rise of Trump and the Bernie Sanders are a reflection of these two contradictory philosophies. In such a scenario the middle path is probably a better bet in terms of national policies. Hope Hilary wins.
Re-joinder 2:
In that sense, rhetorical opposition of the RSS / BJP by media, leftists is worse than the rhetorics of motor mouths of the RSS / BJP. The former seem to have diabolical agenda, while the latter are plain foolish and hope their wiser colleagues will explain that moderation will better for them compared to hate.
Re-joinder 3:
The limited intent of the original note is exhort us to value the nation state. National identifies and symbols are important. It is not about stridency about anti-nationalism, but more about the love for one's nation and valuing one's freedom. It is about recognising the different people, organisations, investments that go to protecting the national identity. What is anti-national is a very vague question. Most of the things that are termed anti-national by modern day media or rightists are not anti-national. Rooting for nationalism is triggered by love for nation and fellow citizen, independent/rational thinking, progress (standard of living, quality of life) and excellence (pride in winning olympic medals, winning the world cup, scientific discoveries, social index, successful enterprises etc). Fighting against anti-nationalism is triggered by hate, fear, mob/irrational thinking. So thumbs for nationalism is not exactly the same thumbs for strident rhetoric against all forms of perceived anti-nationalism.
Rabindranath Tagore wrote in one of his essays that Patriotism is narrow-mindedness. Indian media and 'intellectuals' have many times said Patriotism is one notch better than Nationalism. Looking at both the points together - does it mean that nationalism and the concept of nation state (with ear-marked boundaries) is ultra narrow-mindedness. Despite the power of the capital and the internet, land is still wired into psyche of mankind - it will remain so for another few generations. Keeping this is mind - protecting one's national identify (i.e. the physical boundary to start with) will remain critical for good many more decades to come. Lets try to think what would have happened to each one of us - if India would have lost one its wars with Pakistan or if China had occupied more land. The dynamics would have been quite different. Similar to Lt Gen Madan is talking about. As an Indian, I would love my country, country men and policy makers to be tolerant, accommodative, forgiving. But still, concepts of Nationalism are very relevant in India. Ignoring this will at best be naive, at worst it can put all of us our history and our future in danger. Let us try to see what has happened in South East Asia / South Asia over the past 1000 years and the answer will be clear. Except the last 70 years, for the rest last 1000 years, the Indian identity was largely fractured (except for about 100 odd years between Akbar's to Aurangazeb's rule) and Indians generally divided. If we objectively analyse the trends during this period in terms of a) demographics b) prosperity c) scientific discoveries - the answers will be stark. India needs to stay together for many more years. We need respect the concept of Nation state and the symbols of nationalism associated with it.
Re-joinder 1:
We have not become a post modern race entirely yet. Many concepts of the modern era are still relevant. While, at a core and at its best a human mind is post modern in character; there are large swathes of human mass which are not even modern. The rise of Trump and the Bernie Sanders are a reflection of these two contradictory philosophies. In such a scenario the middle path is probably a better bet in terms of national policies. Hope Hilary wins.
Re-joinder 2:
In that sense, rhetorical opposition of the RSS / BJP by media, leftists is worse than the rhetorics of motor mouths of the RSS / BJP. The former seem to have diabolical agenda, while the latter are plain foolish and hope their wiser colleagues will explain that moderation will better for them compared to hate.
Re-joinder 3:
The limited intent of the original note is exhort us to value the nation state. National identifies and symbols are important. It is not about stridency about anti-nationalism, but more about the love for one's nation and valuing one's freedom. It is about recognising the different people, organisations, investments that go to protecting the national identity. What is anti-national is a very vague question. Most of the things that are termed anti-national by modern day media or rightists are not anti-national. Rooting for nationalism is triggered by love for nation and fellow citizen, independent/rational thinking, progress (standard of living, quality of life) and excellence (pride in winning olympic medals, winning the world cup, scientific discoveries, social index, successful enterprises etc). Fighting against anti-nationalism is triggered by hate, fear, mob/irrational thinking. So thumbs for nationalism is not exactly the same thumbs for strident rhetoric against all forms of perceived anti-nationalism.
Loans in India
ReplyDeleteScholarships are awarded under this scheme (GCSS) annually to international students for studying undergraduate, postgraduate degrees and for pursuing research at Indian universities, in fields other than medical. So if you want study in India and searching the details about loans in India etc stays on our Ugottit website.
Loans in India
ReplyDeleteScholarships are awarded under this scheme (GCSS) annually to international students for studying undergraduate, postgraduate degrees and for pursuing research at Indian universities, in fields other than medical. So if you want study in India and searching the details about loans in India etc stays on our Ugottit website.