"Isms" and India ~by Rashmi Prabha
Shri Rajyavardhan Rathore's article in TOI (dated 2 July, 2019) compels us to think that are these all 'isms' (like imperialism, realism, nationalism, liberalism, communism, capitalism, globalism etc.) are only talks of History or Political Science books? Which are the groups of vested interest working together to limit the strength of India? Who are attempting to dim the sheen of leader of our country?
These talks of 'isms' are not flying suddenly out of our book, these are the very principles of political systems around the globe. These 'isms' are given their names by study and observation of societies for years by scholars across the world.
These talks of 'isms' are not flying suddenly out of our book, these are the very principles of political systems around the globe. These 'isms' are given their names by study and observation of societies for years by scholars across the world.
When any society behaves in certain way, we relate its characteristics with these 'isms'. Societies behave in certain manner or shows certain characteristics in particular time period. Internal and external situations become catalyst in flourishing of certain 'isms'. Some groups or leaders also act as catalyst in the process of development of certain 'isms' in society and state.
Mahatma Gandhi with Pt. Nehru
When we see Nationalist character breeding in society or state, we become little wary, because we learn from past experience. Whenever, wherever nationalists become a force to reckon with, great internal and external upheaval occur. Nationalism talks supremacy of nation and national interest. But there can't be a universally accepted definition of national interest.
Who decides what constitutes national interest at any given point of time? If we take a look at history, it is found that different statesmen have justified their policies in the name of national interest. Napoleon was acting in the interest of France when he invaded Russia and later at battle of Waterloo. Hitler justified his expansionist policies including a mindless multi front war in the name of Germany's national interest. Nationalism played an important role in getting rid of colonial rule around the world. But it homogenises people in fixed hierarchy. Nationalism focuses on identities and tries to overlook the pluralities that differentiate people within the same state on the basis of gender, ethnicity, class, cast or religion. Nationalism creates a dominant nationality, it creates myths that legitimise the state system in which violence is used to settle social conflicts. Internal differences are covered up and external differences are enhanced by creating a dreaded picture of enemy.
Democracy: Universal frenchise
Use of nationalism to unite people of India is of no use. Unity doesn't mean herd mentality. For example if India decides to act against any country there will be discussion and debate about the pros and cons of the action. It is not necessary that everyone agrees to Government's decision, in fact it is always good to have some opposition so government could tread consciously after weighing all options. We can't forget division of India despite strong notion of nationalism during freedom movement. So nationalism is not a guarantee of unity, rather it gives illusion of unity. Having different opinion or calling ultra nationalist is not offensive. It (criticism of nationalism) helps to keep check on those elements which are using this nationalism as tool to further their own interest. No people or group can limit the strength of India if we have right policies and vision.
India i.e. Bharat
No one is attempting to dim the sheen of leader of our country. Only calling ultra nationalist cannot rob any leader's sheen but, always remember when we make any one a leader of a particular race, religion, cast we just diminish the stature of that leader. Once Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar was 'father of constitution' but now he is only a dalit symbol. In India Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru are the most critically analysed leaders but their sheen is still intact.
There is no doubt that not only India but every country needs a strong leader. But we can't imagine a strong leader in a country with weak economic, military and human development parameters. Other leaders have their contribution too, to take our nation to this strong status. India has witnessed many strong challenging and decisive steps taken by it's leaders as rebuilding of nation after independence, staying away from both blocks and getting acceptance as the leader of third world, nuclear tests, nationalisation of banks, abolition of privy purse, defeating Pakistan and surrender of it's 93,000 soldiers (the largest military surrender in the world after WW-II), formation of Bangladesh, sending troops to Maldives, sending 'Shanti Sena' to Srilanka, opening up of our economy and many more. 48 years ago there were many more issues than that of today, much more international pressure than that of today, one of our leaders not only withstood pressure from the world but also showed her strength to the world. Instead of creating fear of division of India, she divided other country which had become nuisance to us because of refugee influx.
Strength of countries are not built in a day. So credit should be given where credit is due. Tough decisions are not a sign of being authoritarian if democratic process of decision making is followed. Political parties are here to contest elections, to win and to form government through democratic process. There is nothing wrong in the BJP's Slogan 'congress mukt Bharat', as it symbolises to form government in all states. After few years we might be hearing 'BJP mukt Bharat'. No one can suppress opposition if they don't choose to be suppressed. Even great dictators, authoritarians, great colonial powers could not suppress opposition. But where is opposition? It is no where to be seen. Very bad omen for democracy.
Democracy: Election campaigning
As far as west Bengal is concerned, our strong and decisive leadership could have taken a strong decision at the time of Darjeeling standoff of 2017. Many other incidents happened which needed a message from leadership. Is this inaction deliberate? State of West Bengal inherited the legacy of another 'ism' from it's predecessor regime which believed in political violence. Of course that is communism.
Nothing wrong in taking credit of army's action but at the same time be ready to take responsibility of security and intelligence lapses which claim innumerable lives. India never go for war, it always defends itself. Isolation of Pakistan is not the result of Balakot, actually Balakot happened because Pakistan was already isolated globally. Healthy criticism should be welcomed, in fact it should be encouraged.
Democracy: Election Rally
Many countries which became independent from colonial rule in 20th century turned into authoritarian regime but, India has chosen democracy. Now, after 72 years of Independence when India is doing well within it's democratic setup there is no question of it's going under any authoritarian rule or showing any inclination towards any 'ism' which prohibits independent and rational thinking.
By Rashmi Prabha
Comments
Post a Comment