Nation Narrative Globalisation

8/13/2019 Nation Narrative Globalisation

1/9

A Nation Searching for a Narrative in Times of GlobalisationAuthor(s): Neera ChandhokeSource: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 34, No. 18 (May 1-7, 1999), pp. 1040-1047Published by: Economic and Political WeeklyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4407906

Accessed: 27/05/2010 02:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epw.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Economic and Political Weeklyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4407906?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epwhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epwhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4407906?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/9

a t i o n Searching o r arrativei n i m e s o lobalisation

Neera ChandhokeAs India 's position in the world has receded, as Indians are seeing other countries of Asia, and increasinglyChina, outstrip their country, as Indian society is mired in caste and religious wars, as the statt has todevote more and more of its energy to these cases as well as to cases where people demand self-determination,as integration into the world marked through globalisation underscores India's underdevelopment and

powerlessness in the global arena, the response of large sections of the Indian middle class has taken theform of aggressive intolerance. This intolerance that puts the blame on readily identifiable scapegoats -the religious minoritiesfor instance -providesfertile groundfor the seeds ofcommunalism and majoritarianism.The net result is that the nation has been narrated in a new model - that of majoritarianism that servesto exclude rather than include, marginalise rather thannantegrate, and keep out rather than embody largesections of its own inhabitants.As the gruesome and searing images ofChristianmissionaries being burntaliveandchurchesbeing set on fireetch them-selves on our collective consciousness,with their irrefutableconnection to theearlier patternsof brutaldestructiondi-rected at the Muslimcommunity,can weas citizens of this democratic republicdodge the hardquestionas to how did weget here.1

INTRODUCTIONTHE proposition that middle age bringswith it profound lassitude, dispiritedness,and perhapsresignation may be a truism,but it is not by that fact necessarily ren-dereduntrue.Because life undeniablydoesseem to be so much more messier whenthenation andits inhabitantsarriveatmid-age. For one, the dizzying euphoria ofyouth that the present and the future canbe managed, if not ordered, and guided,if notcontrolled,declines into ageneralisedand crippling lack of confidence thatperhaps it cannot be so. Even more dis-turbing is the accompanying recognitionthat perhaps we may never be able tocontrol the future; that perhaps we havenever been able to do so despite all themassive conceits of youth. This seems tobe particularly true of India and Indiansas our country proceeds beyond middleage too - and here the imagination flo.n-ders. For no one seems to know where weare going, though there is still somemeasure of reasonable certainty that weknow where we have come from, andperhaps where we are right now.Contrastthis to the heady optimism thatpervaded the country in roughly the 15years following independence. Bolsteredand buoyed by memories of the impres-sive victory that the nationalist, anti-co-lonial movement had won against colo-nialism; we had felt that the future how-

soeverwracked yuncertainityhepresentmayhavebeen,wasours.Today ormostof us even thepresentmarked s it is bylossofcontrol verpolitical ndeconomicagendasas Indiarapidlyglobalises,doesnot seemto be ours.Forglobalisation asputa neatend,proclaimed grand inaleas it were,to all ourconvictions hatthecountry s in controlof its own destiny,and hat henarrativef the nation s self-referential,nasmuchas it draws ts sus-tenance from internal interactionsanddebates.Now a greatdeal of theoretical nergyhasbeenexpendednexplaining, oncep-tualising, and describingglobalisation.Western heorists ell us thatthe processhas ntensified lobal nterconnectedness,so eventsin one partof the world- thecollapseof stockmarkets or instancesimultaneously ffect otherpartsof theworld.DavidHarvey n an evocative or-mulationdescribes he processof simul-taneityas 'time-space ompression'.2orusin thepostcolonialworld,however,hisformulationannotbe but ncomplete ndinadequatenasmuch s it failstocapturethe phenomenon f powerthatoccupiesthe core of globalisation. ndeed,as thewest imposesits own ideas of how oursociety, cultures,economy,and politicsshouldbe arranged n us, most of thepostcolonial world has experiencedglobalisation as colossal arrogance andviolence.As thispart f the world s beinghammerednto shapeto meet the needsof theglobal economyonce again,as wearebeingtold how to think andwhattothinkonceagain,relatively elf-sufficientsocietieshavebeenprisedopento receivenew commands n how tocomporthem-selves. The dreamswe oncedreamt f onourrespective illows hat ndiawouldbein time a self-reliantand self-sufficientnationhere speak ftheNehruvianision

- have been perhaps rremediably up-tured.Andthe narrative f the nation hatwas lovinglyandcarefullybuiltthroughand in the struggle againstcolonialism,and thatconstitutedmuch of the imme-diatepost-colonialgeneration my gen-eration appearso be on themargins fobsolescence.What s perhapsoddis thatat theverytime that the nationhas beenopened upto internationalmessaging,we see theeruptionof culturalnationalismn a dis-turbingmode. At theverytimeas we arebeing constitutedby the informationalrevolutionas citizensof what McLuhancalls the 'globalvillage', we areseekingto recoverour'authenticity's the inheri-torsof some bonafide meaningsystemon what t means o beIndian.Onsecondglance, however, this contradiction sperhaps endemic to the process ofglobalisation.Foreven as theprocesshasrupturedhe self-referential arrative fthenation, heseruptures ave bred heirown reflexesandtrajectoriesn the formof defensiveandreactive ormulationsnwhat heIndiannation s about. ndeed heironyof globalisation ests n thefactthatatthevery ime t seekstopound heworldinto a single consciousnessthrough heinformationalevolution,hisveryrevolu-tion has bred and fostered several un-palatableefinitions fculturalxclusivity.This may possibly be natural o thehumanondition,nasmuchshumaneingsconstantly unt orassurances. herefore,the construction f a worldthatpromisesopen-ended possibilities, a world thatassuresmultipledefinitions of who weare,can also nurturedeepandprofounduncertainity ndconfusionas to who wereallyare. Oversetby doubt and hesita-tionspeopletendto searchfuriously ordefinitereferrals f identity hatwill fixwho heyare or hemselves nd orothers.

1040 Economic and Political Weekly Mayl, 1999


3/9

In otherword^Ie aredisposed o chasetnendingly for 'referrals',at the verymoment hatwe are oldthat dentitiesarenotonlypluralbut hat heyare luid.Andmore often than not, these 'referrals'happento be that of a unified, homo-genised albeit onstructed)ationalisma nationalism hatpledges certainty.Theproblem s that the quest for certaintyamidst flux has bred undesirable andunviable ormulations f culturalnation-alism;a nationalism efinedon the axisof themajority eligion,andanationalism,recollect, hathad been ruledout by theleaders fthe reedommovementn India.Recollectalso that heleadership tinde-pendencehad soughtto bind people insentiments of belonging that accruethroughivicnationalismasedon citizen-ship rights, democracy, and equality.Today ormulationsn cultural rorganicnationalismseek to overturnall suchnotions andpractices.

Unquestionably,omeof these ormula-tions give us cause for worry. For ageneralisedmuscular ggressiveness nwhat t means o be Indianhasresultednbelligerent ndviciousattacks n culturaland religiousminorities,aggressivenessagainstPakistan,and institutionalisedgeneralised tmospheref intolerancenthe body politic.Notions of a culturallypurenation re eading henation arawayfrom hemannern which t wasoriginallynarrated y the left liberal eadershipnIndia. n theprocesswe - andI speakofleft liberals seem to have lost controloverhistorically onstituted nd handeddown narratives f the nation,becausethey have been hijackedby fringes ofrightwing lements.Nowwecanrespondo thisdebilitatingloss of control n two ways. One, over-comebyageneral enseof fatiguewe cansay, as manypostmodernistsresaying,that here s nothinghatcanbedone; hatdreams fpoliticalnterventionnthepolityare both futile as well as illusive. Suchinterventions e canarguen apostmodermood inevitablydegenerate nto status-quoismand heconsolidation f power ntime. We can in other wordsshrugourshoulders ndrenounce ll responsibilityfor sortingout this mess.On the otherhand,arguablymessinesscan occasionallyprove to be creative.Perhaps his, I suggest, is the time tonarratehe nation n a newmode;a modethat will perchancecover theflanks of thenarrative f nationalism hat mostof.usinherited as our patrimony.It is alsoconceivablyimetoexplore he structuralinadequaciesntheway n which henationhas been in BenedictAnderson'sadmit-

tedly overused but nevertheless usefulformulationimagined',at leastbysomesections of the body politic. In fact, anengagementwith receivednarratives fnationalismmaybeprofoundlyonstruc-tive. For it is only through his process,that we can shift frombeing consumersof receivednarratives,obeingproducersof a shared narrative f the nation.Thisnarrativen'order o proveviableandrelevant orourneeds thatofa multi-cultural,multi-religiousndmulti-ethnicsociety- shouldpossessin the mainoneproperty.t shouldof coursepossessthepotential o address he problemsof thehereandnow,aswellthecapacity o takeon undesirableormulationsnthenation.But moreimportantly,t shouldbe ableto fashion henationn ademocraticmode.Fortherehappensobe noearthly easonwhysocietiesthataspire owardsdemoc-racyshouldspeak anguages f national-ism thatare ounded nintolerance,hau-

vinism,and fascism.Suchlanguages,weneed to recognise,neutralise,and evenbetraydemocracy. n otherwords, f oursociety has to fulfil its own promiseofdemocracy, our narratives of the nationhave to be democratic. There is no otherchoice, for no healthy society that alsohappensto lay claim to being a greatcivilisationcan live with schizophrenia.Today, however, our society is fastapproachinghe vergeof schizophrenia,becausewe proclaim urcommitmentodemocracy t theverytime discoursesoffascismhavemade heirappearancen thepoliticalstage.But there s no way thatwecanlive withdemocracy sa constitu-entpoliticalprinciple, ndfascismas theconstituent ational rinciple. he wo arefundamentallyncompatible,ndattemptsto commensurateuch ncompatible rin-ciplesarenotonlypoliticallyandmorallyflawed,theyarefranklydishonest. f weadopt democracyas the foundingprin-cipleof thebodypolitic,we will have tosubscribe o a democraticnation; f weadopt ascism,weabdicate llpretensionsto democracy.And whetherwe want togive up democracyas the organisingprinciple f thebodypolitic s somethingwe need to urgentlyreflect on. For thiswill inevitablyhappen f we continue owatchsilentlythe untamedcommunali-sationof oursociety.And silence I mayremind the audience,signifies acquies-cence. We reallyhave no option exceptto intervene mmediatelyn this matter.The nation has to be re-narratedn ademocraticmode in order o recover henation for the peopleof India.It has tobe re-narratedn a democraticmode toretrievet from ascist, ightwingelements

thatparade ntolerance, iolenceagainstminorities,and frankcriminality, s pa-triotism.IThe Nation Re-Imagined

Inaprefatory oint t canbearguedhata nationcannotbe (throughdebatesandcontestations)narrated r 'imagined'asAndersonwouldhave t,once and orall,andleft to fend for itself. Forthe socialconditions in which this narrative isreceived- the conditionsof receptionfwe will - inevitably changeover time.Therefore, nlessthenarrativeonstantlyadjusts o changedconditionsandalteredaspirations, t will be quicklyrenderedincongruous and irrelevant. In otherwords,the nationneeds to be constantlyre-negotiatedto suit the needs of thepresent.If such re-negotiationdoes notoccurthrough he adoptionof freshandappropriateechniquesof representation,the narrativewill fail to sparkoff collec-tive imaginationsof belonging and ofconnectedness.And once this happens,nationalism s thenarrative f thenationis itself. rendered archaic. In short, athistorically significant moments of itspolitical biography,any nationwill becompelledto bothre-imagineas well asre-narratetself to its inhabitants nd forits inhabitants.Now arguablyuchhistoricallyignifi-cantmoments anarise n at east ourandpossiblymore situations.The first suchsituationwill logicallyanisewhenmemo-riesof themomentnwhich henationwasoriginally magined in the Indiancaseduringthe freedomstruggle- begin tofade rompeople'smindsandrecollection.Therefore,f thenationhas to continue oinhabit hepsychesof itspeople,continueto beinRenan' famouswords,a"24hourplebiscite", it will need to adoptnewtechniquesof representation.hesetech-niquesofrepresentation aybe culledoutof many ources memories,mythologies,songs, literature, and films. What isimportants that heycollectively mpartsignificanceo what t means obeIndian,and they harness collective emotionalenergies in the project of the nation.Therefore,heyhave obefashioned newat such historically ignificantmomentssimplyin orderto perform he task thathas been assignedto them.Ironically,the origins of the secondmoment hatcompelsre-narrationf thenationusuallyemanate ut of theoriginalact of imagining he nation. Forthe actof imagininga nation n a plural ociety,inevitably eneratesmultiplemaginationsof multiplenations.WeinIndiaaresurely

Economicand Political Weekly - May 1, 1999 1041


4/9

familiarwith hisphenomenon. oughlyatthe samemoment hatthe Indiannationtookshapethroughand in the anti-colo-nial struggle,sections of Indiansocietybeganto imaginea nationthey were tolatercall Pakistan an act of imaginationthat ed inexorablyo thepartition f thecountry.Nationalism, herefore,as his-toryshowsus in sometragicdetailbreedsits owntrajectoriesn theformof multiplenations of intent. Think of erstwhileYugoslavia, he Soviet Union,Ethiopia,andRwanda,and now Bosnia,Kashmir,thenorth-east f IndiaandPunjabnot solong ago. As these nationsof intent in-creasinglydefine theirpoliticalidentityagainstheoriginal arrativefone,united,political ommunity,ationalism illhaveto cometo termswith these assertions. tnormally oes sobyacknowledginghem,neutralisinghem,coercingthem,or as-similating hem.In each of these cases,the originalnarrativeof nationalism srestructureds tbattleswith uchdevelop-ments- sometimessuccessfully,some-times unsuccessfully.The third ituationn which thenationwill have o bere-negotiatedsuallyariseswhen religious,language,regional,andethnic ommunities ithinheplural ationincreasinglyemand utonomy,ftagainstthenarrativefhomogeneousationalism.Conversely,ucha momentwill consoli-date tselfwhenmajoritarian ovementsendeavourobuild homogeneous,united'nationthroughsuppressinghese asser-tions and curbing dentities,and whentheypositone identity,one culture,onelanguage or thepluralnation.A prudentandajudiciousnationnormally cknowl-edges that dentitiessmaller hanthatofthenationarelegitimateandacceptable,and thatpeoplehave a rightto them.Itaccordingly djuststs narrativeoassert,ortoreiterate lurality.3 n unwisenationfollowingthe majoritarianmoodtries tocurbthese smaller dentities,often withdisastrousresults- think of Bosnia orRwanda. In both cases, the nation iscompelled o re-imagine tself.

Fourthly,as we see all over thepost-colonialworld,nations end to re-narratethemselves,oftenin a belligerentmood,when the internationalommunitynter-venes openlyin the affairsof sovereignnations.This interventionmay take theshapeof openuse of militaryorce as inIraq.Or tmaytake he formof harshandstarkpoliticalandeconomicconditionali-ties that accompany oan packages bymulti-lateralending agencies. The netresults that he(formerly)elf-referentialcharacter f the nationalnarrativend hesovereignty f therecipientountries ave

beendeeplycompromised.Most nationshave soughtoften in disastrousways tocounterhese nterventionsyaggressivelyre-statingheirownnationness, eformu-latingin the processthe originalact ofimagining he nation.IIThe Crisis of the Nation in India

By the astyearsof theeighties,all fourof these situationshad converged n aparticularly nsistent manner to raisequestionsaboutthe originalprojectofnationness n India.Much of the charmand the seductivenessof a nationalism,that hadaccompanied sustainedandavictoriousstruggleagainstthe colonialpower,had worn off for generationsofIndians orn25yearsafterndependence.Commitmento the nationhad simulta-neouslywanedwithpeople nvestingheirenergies in regional, caste, language,religious,and other such particularisticagendas. The national consensus hadfurtherrayedas regionalmovementsnPunjabnot so long ago, Kashmirandinparts of the north-eastchallengedtheterritorialntegrity fthecountry.Variousgroupsbasedon languageandreligionthink of the ShahBanocase - were as-sertingheir utonomynddentity.Aboveall as Indiawasforced hrougha combi-nationof circumstanceso go to theIMFfor a loanin 1991 the nationalnarrativewas deeplyjeopardised. ndeed, he fra-gility of the nationwas never as evidentas when thecountryhadto modifyandsometimes bdicate rojects ndplans hathad been arrivedat throughhistoricallyconstitutedebates, nder arsh conomicconditionalities.Now this was preciselythe momentwhen heproject fhindutva,which ervesto define the country n a majoritarianmode,madetsappearancen thepoliticalstage.At thevery ime ndiawasacceptingits integrationnto the world on grosslyunequal erms,andas it was openingupits borders o the worldoutside,sectionsofsocietywereseeking oturnhecountryinwards. his urningnward, ack o someunspecifiedHindu raditiongarv se kahohumhindu hai - may have been aresponseto thecomplexof causesdescribed bove.The point is thatthe responsetook theshapeof raucousandbelligerent ppealsto ideas of a 'strong'nation based onculturalpurityandexclusiveness.Theseappeals oundreadyresonancen a civilsocietythatwasshowing ncreasingrus-trationwith heway hecountrywasgoing.Resultantly,he nationfor at least largesections of civil society beganto be re-imagined n a majoritarianmood.Logi-

cally, the same rhetoricthat soughttomobilisethecountryon thegroundsof a'regenerated'Hinduism erved o openlyexclude heminoritiesrom he definitionof the nation.Forif the nation s definedby the fact that hemajority elongto theHindureligion, those who do not sub-scribe o thereligionarenot a partof thenation.This is the clearandunambiguousmessageof hindutva.Theproject f hindutvas not,of courseby anystretchof imagination, newone.It happenedto come into existence atroughlythe same time as the Congressinitiated heproject f secularnationalismin the twenties. This is not strange,notwhenwe recollect hateveryconstructionof nationalism is a plural venture. Ifnationalisms a participative rojectbe-cause it is plural,each participantroupnaturally onstructsts own andperhapsincommensurableersion f what t meansto be a nation.This is intrinsic o massnationalism.Accordingly, s rival ormu-lations struggled n the publicarenatoimprint he body politic with their ownimageryandmodelof thenation tate; henationbecamea contestedconcept.It, inotherwords,became heobjectof diverseand often incognisant hinking.On the one hand, he leadership f themainstreamectionof the reedomtruggle- JawaharlalNehru in particular was toinsistrepeatedly ndemphaticallyhat twas undesirable o use the terms HinduandHinduismo characterisendian istoryand culture.Evenas competing eligiousidentitiespolarised round he inesof thetwo-nation heorywere to challengeandfragmentthe movement,the Congresscontinued o reiterate hat the only basisupon which the new nation could beorganisedwas secularismand the rightsof the minorities o theirownreligionandculture.Theserightsweregranted searlyas 1928 nthe MotilalNehru onstitution.Subsequently,article29 and 30 of thefundamentalightschapter f the Consti-tution sanctioned minority rights, andarticles25-30 guaranteedhefreedomofreligion.Thetaskof buildingandconsolidatinga secularnationgained urgencyas thecountrywaspartitioned long he lines ofreligion,andas wholesalemassacres hataccompaniedhe birthof Pakistan earedcollective memoriesof the bodypolitic.In fact, the explosionof religioussensi-bilitiesaroundhiseventprovokedntenseemotionalismnd omedegree firrationa-lism. Several eaderswerearguingor theestablishment f a Hindu state to offsetthe Islamic statethat wouldpresumablyconsolidate tself in Pakistan.The demo-



5/9


6/9

religiousminorities reas mucha partofthebodypoliticas themajority, otwith-standing he fact thatthey are the equalinheritorsofandarticipantsn thenation,theyarebeing oldthat hemajority rouptolerates hembecause that s the natureof the majority eligion.What could bemore ondescending?What ouldbemorealienating?What ould estifymore o thevictoryof the BJP set agenda?And itwouldbelaughablef itwerenot so tragicthat heBJPhasactuallyhailed heaccep-tanceof Hinduismby theCongress.Thisacceptance ompletelyandutterlyrepu-diates he insistencebyJawaharlal ehruthat he termHinduandHinduism houldnotbeused odescribehecountry.Nothingcould illustratemorestarkly hegap be-tween the presentpartyand the originalCongress leadershipthat dreamt of ademocratic ecularnation.What s moreimportants thatdespiteall its rhetoricalstatementshat t is committedo thecauseof theminorities,he historical mbiguitythat heCongressdisplayswhen t comesto secularism,cannot but feed into thehindutvaprojectthat openly visualisesanddefines the nationas predominantlyHindu.Hindutvaasconsolidatedtselfrecentlyincivil society n India,but tsoriginsgoback to the 1920s. In 1923, Savarkarconstructed the political category of'Hindus'andtheHindunation,by deny-ing to otherreligiouscommunities heirrightfulplace in India. The Hindu,hewrote, "inherits he civilisation of thecountry s representedn a commonhis-tory,commonheroes,a common litera-ture,a commonart,a common aw and acommonjurisprudence,ommon airsandfestivals, itesandrituals, eremonies ndsacraments".8ndia for the Hindus,heargued, is pitrabhumi and punyabhumi,bothfatherlandndholyland.Therefore,thoughthe Christiansand the Muslimshave "inheritedalong with Hindus acommonFatherland nda greaterpartofthe wealthof the commonculture lan-guage, aw, custom, olkloreandhistory,[they]arenot and cannotbe recognisedas Hindus...Their olyland s far off inArabiaor Persia".9And M S Golwalkarwas to narrowlyconceptualiseHindustan s the andoftheHindus- "thiscountry,Hindustan,heHindu acewith ts HinduReligion,HinduCulture, ndHinduLanguage ompletesthe Nationconcept".'lTheseideaswereto inspireandpropel he movement oraHinduIndiaor a majoritarianndiabothin colonial andin postcolonial imes. Inpursuitof thisproject he minorities ar-getedas theywere,in brutaland soulless

stereotypes as 'hostile', 'menacing','threatening', r 'demonic',were mar-ginalisedrom heveryconstruction fthenation.From he 1950s o the1980s,thesanghparivar epta lowprofile. toccupied heright wing fringeof Indianpolitics;thecentre space was occupied by thehegemonicCongressonsensualystem.Itwere heeventsof the 1980sand1990s,which were to bringnotionsof undiffer-entiated itizenship,majoritarianism,ul-turalnationalism,heconceptof a strongnation-state, nattackon secularism ndminorityultures, nd hedevelopmentfchauvinistic, arrow,venfascistconcep-tions of the nation to the fore.12The reasons orthesuccessof hindutvain substantial ectionsof civil societyareadmittedlyarge and complex.What isimportants that hehindutvarigadeeeksto restorewhat t sees as thejeopardisedunityof thenation,by proclaimingtselfaswedded othe onenessand ntegrity fIndia,andbyharping ntheneedtobuilda strongnation.The ideologyhas foundready esonance mong argeparts f civilsociety- a deeplyfrustratedivil societythat was lookingfor explanations, uickandready olutions, ndmore mportantlyscapegoats, or the quagmire he nationfounditself in.As India's positionin the world hasreceded. s Indians reseeingothercoun-tries of Asia and increasinglyChina,outstripheircountry, s Indian ociety smired n casteandreligiouswars,as thestatehas to devotemore and moreof itsenergyto these cases as well as to caseswherepeopledemand elf-determination,as ntegrationnto heworldmarkethroughglobalisationunderscores ndia'sunder-developmentand powerlessness n theglobal arena, he responseof largesec-tionsof the Indianmiddleclasshas takentheformof aggressiventolerance.13hisintolerance hatputs heblameonreadilyidentifiablescapegoats- the religiousminorities or instance provides ertilegroundortheseedsof communalismndmajoritarianism.henet result s that henationhas been narratedn a new modethat of majoritarianismhat serves toexclude rather han nclude,marginaliseratherhan ntegrate, ndkeepoutratherthan embodylarge sections of its owninhabitants.The BJPmay haveformallymodifiedits positionon secularism ndon minori-ties once it attainedpowerat the centre,buttheharmhasbeen done. Forone, thetriggering ff andthe consolidation f amood thatof Hindutva, asbred ts ownconsequencesn theshapeof unleashing

open ascist orces.Thegruesomemurderof a 59-yearold missionaryand his twosons,one agedseven and theothernine,is the directeven if an unintended, ut-comeof thetriggering ff andconsolida-tion of this mood. For once people'senergieshavebeenharnessedo theprojectof buildinga Hindustate whatever hatmightmean andonce thepartyhat eadsthismobilisation n civil society acquiresstatepower,suchacts take on the veneerof reasonableness,hey may even seemnatural.Evenif technically peaking heparty s not involvedin specific crimesagainstheminorities,tcertainlysrespon-sible for unearthingnefarious and dis-tastefultrends n the polity.For undeni-ablythepartyalongwith theaffiliatesofthe Sangh parivarhas been directly m-plicated n whippingup hatecampaignsagainsthereligiousminoritiesor hepastdecadeor so. Under he umbrella f softHinduism ractised ythecentral overn-ment,afascistHinduism inds ullexpres-sion in hatefuland virulentpogromsofthe religious minorities.As far as theminorities reconcerned,hediscourse fhindutvaat best reeksof paternalism;tworst,it reeksof fascism.14And this ispassedoff as patriotismIf theconsolidation famood srespon-sible or hedestructionf theBabrimasjdand now the crimesagainst he ChristianminoritynGujaratndOrissa,t isequallyresponsiblefor the spreadof a fairlygeneralised elief that herightfulnheri-tor of the nation is the majoritycom-munity.Otherwise erfectlywellmeaningpeoplenow subscribe o the formulationthat the minoritieshave been pamperedthrough he Nehruvian onceptsof secu-larismandminority ights the letters othe editor columns of any newspaper rnews magazinewill testifyto this. Thatthese rights have been grantedby theConstitution, ndthattheyflowedout ofhistorically onstituted ebates s glossedover,even challenged.Theoverthrow fhistoryhasneverbeenmore omplete, ndtheshortsightednessf thisoverthrow asneverbeen moreobvious.What s importants thatall thisposesa threat o thedoctrine f secular ndcivicnationalism asedupona commitmentoreligiousfreedom,the distancingof thestate fromall religions,andthe grantofcitizenship ights o allpeople rrespectiveof theiraffiliation, hatthe Indiannationhadbegun tspost-independenceife with.This causes some sadness when we re-member hatatonepoint, heIndian ationhad been constructedjuridically andpolitically. tstood orpolitical iberation,foruniversal uman ights,orsecularism,



7/9

and for plurality.Today an aggressivenationalconsciousnesscalls for homo-genisation and sameness. Appeals toascriptive dentitiesare louder thanap-peals to political norms. And pungentnotionsof thevolkreplace hecommunityof rightsbearingcitizens.Unhappily,whereas, he liberal eader-ship underNehrudesignedsecularandcivic nationalismo assure heminoritiesof fairplayand ustice, odayhindutva asbeen substitutedor secularism.An un-easy reminder f this is the formulationonhindutvanajudgment f theSupremeCourtof India.15 hecourtruled hat heconceptof hindutva,whichincidentallyhadbeenused to garer votes in an elec-tion, s not a religiousdoctrinebuta wayof life.Theuseof the ermdoesnotamounttocorrupt ractices uring n election.Nointerpretationuled hecourt,can confinethe meaningof hindutva o the narrowlimitsof religionalone,or equate t withfundamentalistHindureligious bigotry.Hindutva,tated hecourt urther, enotesthecontent f Indian ulture ndheritage.It is a way of life for the people in thesubcontinent.This is a deeply flawedjudgment s various ommentatorsaveargued,nstitutionalisingnd egitimisingas it does discriminatory racticesandprovocative oratory.16What is moreimportants thatit simply indicatesthedissolutionof the nationalconsensusonsecularnationalismhatwas at one pointadopted o manage ntergroup elationsamongcommunities.Thesedevelopments eed,I suggest, obe countered trongly f we wantto pre-serveourdemocraticredentials.n otherwords,we have to pool our collectiveenergies o formulate democratic arra-tive of thenation.Foronly a democraticnarrative ill allowus to dream f afuturewherepeoplebelongingto diverse andperhapsncommensurableersuasions illbeable o ive ogethernpeaceand ivility.

II1Attempting Some Recovery of aCivil Narrative of the NationAs aprefatory oint et me suggest hatnations indfeasiblenarrativesorthem-selves, only when those narratives hatrepresenthenation o andfor its inhab-itants,manage o connect themthroughties of belonging o eachotherandto thenation.A nationcan only prosperwhenits members eel that heir ives and theirdreams re ncompletewithout achother.Andit canflourishonly whenits inhab-itants eel that heir ates are nextricablyintertwinedo that of the nation.This istheessenceof nationalism,he very pur-

poseforwhich thenation s broughtntoexistence throughrepresentations hatserve ocreateandconsolidateeelingsofconnectedness.A nation,in effect, canonly harness the collective emotionalenergiesof itspeoplewhen t manages oestablishsuch connectedness ndcorre-sponding eelings of belonging.Certainly, ations onstruct hemselvesaround bjective actors uchas territorialborders, hared raditions, ommonhis-toricalmemories, ituals,practices, nd acommonlanguage.But the presenceofobjectivefactorsis simplynot enough.These actorshave obeinvestedwithrichsymbolism ndmeaningo that heyevokedeep sentimentsof identification andbelonging. t is onlythen hatagroup anbecalleda nation.Therefore,suggest hatwhether groupof peoplecan be termedanation,dependsargelyonwhetherheyconsider themselves as belonging to one,andwhetherheyconsider hemselves is-tinguished rom othersby this fact. It issimplynot enoughto depicta nation nterms of its institutions, tructures, ndideologies; t has to be depicted n termsof structures f feelings.These structures f feelings may wellbe unexpressed,hey may well be sub-terranean,hey maywell be for themostpartunrealised,and unarticulated thisis notimportant.What s importants thatpeople experienceconfusion,bewilder-ment,or incompleteness;hey feel thattheyhave ittleunderstandingf whotheyare,where heycomefrom,andwhat heyshoulddo in identifiable ndnotso iden-tifiable ituations,ftheyaredeniedaccessto theirnationalcommunity thinkofrefugees rofexiles.What s thebest hingaboutmigrantsand seceded countries?wondersSalmanRushdie n Shame."Ithink t is theirhopefulness...And hat sthe worst hing? t is theemptiness f ourluggage...Wehave floatedupwardsromhistory,frommemory, rom time."Nowthese sentiments f belonging anonly arise and consolidate hemselves nthe imaginationsand in the emotionalenergiesof its inhabitants f the nationspeaks oallsectionsof itspeople.To theinhabitanttshouldpromisebelonging, otherefugeeor he mmigranthememoriesof belonging,to the aspirant itizenthepromiseof belonging.But at all timesithasto aboveallthings peak he anguageof belonging.This s importantorpeopleto feel intuitively hattheyare at home,that henationstheirs,and hat, herefore,theyhavea senseof roots ndofrootedness.Peoplemust feel thatwhereverheyare,whateverheyaredoing, heyalwayshavesomethingand somewhere o comeback

to, and that if they do not have this some-thing they will be lost, thatthey will 'floatupwards' without anything to hold themto the ground. If this is true, then lack ofbelonging inevitably leads to alienationand deprival. And homelessness as anyrefugee or immigrant can tell us, canperhaps prove to be the most enervatingand torturedexperience of human beingsbecause there is nothing within hailingdistance.SukritaPaulKumarwrites about a notedpoet R Parthasarthywho migrated to thewest, because as he confessed, "Ibecamehypercritical of everything Indian. Indiansociety was, I felt, deeply neurotic, it feetchained to a grossly exaggerated past.India was a nation of sleep walkers".Fascinated by an England he had createdin his mind in the twilight of the Raj, hewas unpreparedfor the alienness and thebareness of the country of his adoption.It was then in his poem the 'Exile' thathe was to write.He had spent his youth whoringAfter English gods.There is something to be said for exile:you learn that roots are deepThat language is a tree, loses its colourunder anothersky

However, the most reassuringthingabout the past is that it has happened.17But then there cannot be one feeling ofbelonging, or one 'reassuring thing aboutthe past' - in a society that consists ofvarious linguistic, religious, and culturalgroups. For people belong to the nationin different ways - through their ownlanguages, cultures,andreligions. Belong-ing is always plural in its ties, its imagi-nation, memory, sense of history, andperception of the present. Therefore, wecall any attempt to impose one sense ofbelonging on diversegroups,each of whichrelate to the nation in their own way,through the imposition of one language,or religion, or culture - fascism. In otherwords, people must in a democraticnationat least be free to belong to the nation intheir own ways. The crucial term here isfreedom. Freedom in turn involves twopropositions. One, that groups should befree to follow their own religious andcultural practiceswithin the ambitof whatis democratically permissible. Secondly,groups should not be targeted on theground that they subscribe to a religiouspersuasion that is not that of the majority.A failure to do so, it is evident, leads toalienation, estrangement, andwithdrawal.The narrative of the nation in such aneventnegates the possibility of its ownexistence- thatof belonging.

Economicand Political Weekly May 1, 1999 1045


8/9

Therefore, nynarrative f the Indiannation in order to fulfil the conditions ofits own existence has to recognise as wellas appreciatehe fact of plurality.Therecognitionandthe appreciation f plu-rality s goodforvarious easons. tis, forinstance,good for every society to beexposed to differentways of life. Thiswidens social horizons,becausepeoplelearnfrom each other differentways ofnegotiating he world.Societies acquiretoleration ndopen-mindednessven asthe boundaries f society are broadenedandexpanded.This is the bestguaranteeto prevent ocieties urningnwardsuponthemselves,rombecomingchauvinistic,or intolerant.But above all we need torecognise pluralismbecause this is thebestguaranteef a viablenation a nationthat peaksoallthe anguage fbelonging.However,in the currently urchargedatmosphere f intolerance owardsreli-giousminorities, commitmentoplural-ismmaynotbeenough. nfact,pluralism,let me suggest, maybe essentialbut notsufficient o serveas aconstituent eatureof the body politic.Letus,for nstance, xamineasituationwhere hreepropositionsreon offer.Thefirstpropositions that a commitment opluralismmplies acceptanceof the factthata societyconsists of variousgroups,each of which subscribe o differentandperhaps ncommensurableways of life.The secondproposition'ishatthattheseways of life are of such overwhelmingimportanceor their members hattheyhavearight o them.The thirdpropositionis that f perchancehesewaysof life areunderattackor if they aredecayingbe-cause heyare ubjectedobenignneglect,they should be protected through theinstitutionalisationf supportivenviron-ments or throughminorityrights.Now consider hat there is no logicalconnection etween he hreepropositions.(I)Weaccept he value of pluralismora number f reasons.We,therefore, cceptthe firstbut not the secondproposition,so we feel thatthere s nothingso sacro-sanctabout hesewaysof life,or that heybecomean good of such overridingm-portancehatwe have to grantor institutea right o them.People,we cansay,haveaccess to an infinite numberof com-munitiesnademocraticociety,and hereis no reasonwhyone community houldbeprivilegedverothers.People anrelateto the worldthrougha myriadof com-munities, ndbecomedeepandcompletedindividuals.Ontheotherhand, oconfineournotionof thegoodto thecommunityof the irst nstance religion or nstance,is to imitand runcatendividualpistemes

and systems of value. Communitiesofthe firstinstance,whose membershipsinvoluntary,we can further ay, possessthe powerof tyrannisingheirmembers,and limiting their perceptions andworldviews.We should takeevery stepwe can o break heholdofthecommunityover its people.(II)Or we subscribeo thefirst two ofthethreepropositionsn offer.Therefore,we canallowthat ommunitiesf thefirstinstance are of such overriding mpor-tance hat ndividualshouldbegiventherightto them. But at the sametime, weneed notnecessarily elievethatwe haveacommitmento themaintenancef thesecommunities.ftheyaredecaying,t mustbe that they are not viable enough,orbecausethe membershave not investedsufficiently n them.Therefore,heres nonecessaryonnec-tion between the three propositionsonoffer.

However,note thatif we subscribe othefirstof thethreepropositions, ut notto the secondand hird, rif we subscribeto the first two but not to the third,wemaylandupwith a principlebut we maylackaconstituency. or, hisconstituencymayhavebeendestroyed itherthroughdeliberatetargetingor throughbenignneglect.Because we have neitherunder-stood that people have a rightto theirreligiouscommunity, nd that this com-munityhas a rightto maintainand re-producetself, we maybe subscribingopluralism tthevery imethat hesepluralcommunities redecaying.Thesegroupsmay simply have been hammered ntoeithernon-existenceor intonon-identityby the majority.Therefore,hepropositionhatIndia sa pluralcountryandthatthis fact shouldbe accepted s by itself essentialbut notenoughas a constitutiveprincipleof thebodypolitic.Forwemayhave aprincipleto gloat over, but we may not have aplurality f groupson ourhands.A com-mitmentopluralismsjustnot sufficientin ourcurrentituation,not if we remem-berthatpeoplearebeingdenied herightto theirreligion,and thatreligiouscom-munitiesarebeing targetedmercilessly.We,it is obvious,have o look furtherhanpluralismo establish herightof minorityreligiouscommunities n the nation.(III)Supposewe were now to reverse-theorderof the threepropositionsmadeabove. The order was that pluralismallows us to understandhatpeoplehavea right o theirreligio-culturalommuni-ties,and his nturnprompts s tocommitourselves to supportinghese communi-ties. Thisby itself,we saw,is notenough

to secureminority roups heright o theiridentity.But assume we begin fromtheperspectiveof the individual ather hanthatof society.Canthis buildupalogicalrelationship etween hetwo?Let us see.(IV.1) The firstpropositions thatweassume hatcultures/religionndreligio-cultural communitiesare of overridingimportance or the individual,becausehumanbeingsacquire he evaluativeca-pacitiesthathelp them to map out andassessthe world rom hesecommunities.Withoutsuch access, individualsaredi-minished.Note that his statement with-outaccessto thereligio-culturalommu-nity thatprovidesthem with evaluativeresources, ndividuals xperiencedimin-ishment, is not somethingthat can bemeasured n the same way as we canmeasure ocio-economicmarginalityorinstance.This is a speculative tatement,whichfalls within the realmof moralityinasmuchas it announcesa stand thisis what is importantor humanbeings.Thisstandneed notbejustifiedby refer-enceto empirical onsiderations,uch asthe statement hatwe haveso manypoorpeople nthecountry, ecausewe measurepovertywithreference o someempiricalconsideration the povertyline for in-stance.We cannotempiricallyprove hathuman eingsarediminishedwithout heirreligiouscommunity, ust as we cannotempirically rove or nstance hathumanbeings possess rights by virtue of theircapacityto be moral.Norshoulddowetry o doso. Rousseaucould notprovethat humanbeingswerebor free and were yet everywhere nchains.No one untilnow has tobeenableto perceive hethicknessorthelengthofthese chains,or indeedprovethat whenhumansare born they are not tied bychains. So whenRousseauspokeof hu-manbeingsbeingborn reeandyet havingbeingchained,he wasaccomplishingwotasks bothof thembeingnormative.Hewas pointingout the illegitimacyof co-ercion as well as the desirability f free-dom.Therefore,heproposition humanbeingsarediminishedf theyaredeprivedof theirreligiouscommunity can onlybe justified in terms of mnorality. ndmoralitys soself-evident,hat fsomeonebelieves the contrary for instance, hatreligion s not mportantorhuman eings- he shouldbe asked to give reasons orhis statement.(IV.2) The second proposition hat isintrinsically elated o the first is that ifreligio-culturalommunitiesare a goodfor he ndividual,hisshouldbeofenoughoverridingmportanceo secureaccesstothemthrough he right o religion.How-

1046, Economic and Political Weekly Mayl, 1999


9/9

ever, andthis is the thirdpropositionnote that the effectiveness of this rightdepends on thepresence of a community.We cannotgive individuals he righttoreligionwhen hecommunitytself sbeingdestroyed.That will amount to sheermindless-ness. heexistenceofacommu-nity,therefore,s a pre-conditionor theexerciseof the ndividual ight oreligion.

Therefore,f we accept he firstpropo-sition,we will have to acceptthe secondand he hird ne's.We will have o realisethat incereligions ndcultures reagoodfor the individual, f a religionis beingtargeted, r f it is sought o be assimilatedinto the majorityculture, we have anobligation o institutea supportive ocialandpoliticalenvironment.t is onlythenthatwe can securethe rightof the indi-vidual to his/her religion. This is theobjectiveof minorityrights.(V) Now consider hat if diverse reli-gionsandcultures reallowed o flourishin society, we will logically possess aplural ociety.Note that f we beginfromthe empirical act of pluralism, his byitself doesnot instituteanobligation hatdiverse and often incommensurableways of life shouldbe respected,or thatvulnerableeligionsshouldbe protected.Wemayhavea commitmentopluralism,butwe maynot have diversereligions ovalue and cherish (except the majorityreligions),andlogically a principleor anormneedsa constituency,otherwise, tis rendered edundant. herefore,we areobligedwithina democraticnarrative fthenation oprotectminority roups,andamongthem, we have to protectthosewho are the most vulnerable r the mosttargeted.It is time,I suggest, hat deas of plura-lism and the accompanyingpremiseoftolerations strengthenedy a firmcom-mitment f therightsof minoritygroupsto theirreligionand culture.This is es-sential or the Indiannation o become aflourishingiableentity, or thelanguageof nationalismas arguedabove has toabove all instil instinctive feelings ofbelongingandhometo all its inhabitants.This it can only do when it acceptsthatpeoplebelong o the nation hrough heirspecificreligion ndculture,hroughheirspecific anguage ndwaysof belonging.Any attempt o wipe this out will leadto the creation of homeless, alienatedcitizens.If the narrativeails to recognisethis,we can logically expectthattheconceptand he nstitution f thenationwill frag-ment,hred, nddissolve.Wecannot peakof an Indiannation,whenconstructionsof this nationare builtupon politicsand

legitimationsof exclusion and denials.For viable nationsare at all times builduponthe politicsof inclusionthat com-bine respectfor distinctidentities withdemocraticncorporationf these identi-ties within the narrativeof nationness.This it seems to me is the only way inwhich people belongingto diverse andincommensurable ersuasionscan livetogethern a nation.Thisis theonlywayin whichtheycan feel that the nation sthere, mbedded n theirmemories nd ntheir maginationor thepresentand theindefiniteuture.This s theonlystuffoutofwhichaviable, lourishing, emocratic,nation can be constructed n times ofglobalisation that have witnessed theeruptionof several distasteful culturalidentities.

Notes[Thispaperwas originally presentedata seminaron 'The Novel in Searchof theNation',organisedby the Sahitya Academy. It is based upon myforthcoming work Beyond Secularism: TheRights of ReligiousMinorities,currentlyn press(OUP, Delhi).]

I Malini Parthasarthy, 'Fascism on theRampage', The Hindu, January26, 1999.2 David Harvey, The Condition of Post-modernityBasil Blackwell, Oxford, 1989.3 I am using the term reiterate for a specificreason. In India,the Congress had assertedthe pluralcharacterof the nationas early as1928. India,hold several theorists,was onecountrythatchoose not to become a nation,because the leadershiprecognised that thecountry consisted of several relativelyautonomous groups who would logicallyresistedbeing mouldedinto a nationstateofthe kind that had been built in Europe.SeeRavinderKumar,India: A 'Nation-State'ora 'Civilization-State'. OccasionalPapersonPerspectivesin IndianDevelopment,Centrefor ContemporaryStudies, Nehru Memorial-Museum and Library. (Delhi, Teen MurtiHouse) no VIII, 1989. Also Bhikhu Parekh,'Ethnocentricity f theNationalistDiscourse'in Nations and Nationalism, Vol 1, no 1,pp 25-52, 1995.4 ChrisBayly, Local Roots of Indian Politics:Allahabad 1880-1920, Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford, p 142, 1975.5 MushirulHasan,LegacyofA DividedNation.India'sMuslimssince Independence,OxfordUniversity Press, Delhi, p 138, 1997.6 MushirulHasan,LegacyofADividedNation,pp 149-50.7 EconomicandPoliticalWeekly, GovernmentAbdicates', November 5, 1966, p 476.8 Savarkar,Hindutva:Who s a Hindu?note40,p 81, 1949[1929],4thedition,Gokhole,Pune.9 Savarkar,Hindutva,p 92.10 M S Golwalkar, We or Our NationhoodDefined (Nagpur, P N Indurkar, BharatPublications)p 43, 1939.11 On this see the first chapterof TapanBasuet al KhakiShorts and Saffron Flags, TractsFor theTimes,OrientLongmans,Hyderabad,1993.

12 See Sumit Sarkar, The Fascism of theSanghParivar', Economic and Political Weekly,January30, 1993, pp 163-66.13 Thomas Blom Hansen, 'GlobalisationandNationalist maginations:Hindutva'sPromiseof Equality throughDifference', Economicand Political Weekly, March 9, 1996,pp 603-16.14 See SumitSarkar, The Fascism of the SanghParivar', 1993. For a response to this pointof view see Achin Vanaik, CommunalismContested, (Delhi, Vistaar),chapter5.15 The Supreme Court had to decide whether12 elected representativesto the BJP/ShivSena government in Maharashtra, thatincluded the chief minister ManoharJoshiand the Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackerayhadengaged in corrupt practices under theRepresentationof the People Act. Section123(3) of theactmakestheappeal o religion,race, caste, community, or language,or theuse of or the appealto religiousand nationalsymbols, for the purpose of winning theelection or for prejudicely affecting theelectionof anyotherperson,corrupt ractices.Section 123 (a) of the act prohibits thepromotion of feelings of enmity or hatredbetween the people on groundsof religion,race, caste, community,or languagefor thepurposes of winning the election or forprejudicing the prospects of any othercandidate winning the election. The courtfound several of the accused, includingBalThackeray guilty of promoting religiousenmity and hatred.What is interesting s thepronouncement of the court on hindutva.ManoharJoshi v Nitin BhauraoPatil, 1995,7 SCALE 30, RameshYeshwant Probhoo vPrabhakar Kasinath Kunte and Ors1995.7 SCALE 1. and ten others.16 CossmanandKapurdelvinginto the historicalcontextswithinwhichtheconceptof hindutvawas articulated, state emphatically thathindutvacannot be separated rom its appealto religion, nor from its assault on thelegitimacy of minorities - 'the courtsconclusion thatthere s nothing ntheconceptof hindutva that promotes religious enmityor hatredbelies the fact that the attackon thereligious minorities is a constituent elementof hindutva'. Brenda Cossman and RatnaKapur,Secularism:Bench-Markedby HinduRight', Economic and Political Weekly,September21, 1996, pp 2613-30 in pg 2625.Also see Anil Nauriya, 'The HindutvaJudgments:A Warning Signal', EconomicandPolitical Weekly, anuary , 1996,vol 31,no 1, pp 10-13.17 Cited in SukritaPaulKumar, The ChangingMask of IndianReality' in Indu Banga andJaidev (eds), Cultural Reorientation inModern India, Manohar, Delhi, pg 141-42.

Economic and Political Weeklyavailable at

A H Wheeler BookstallsWestern RailwayBorivli o Vile Parle

Economic and Political Weekly May 1, 1999 1047

Documents

Nation Narrative Globalisation