“My Country”- Right or Wrong?

I am reminded of a parable of Mencius, the disciple of Confucius. If a child were on the brink of falling into the well, we spontaneously reach out to save it. And this is not done to win public acclaim or to merit the gratitude of the parents of the child. It is simply something which our humanity deep down within us impels us to do.

Affluence creates a weak person and a fragile culture. On the other hand, the confrontation with human suffering and response in terms of compassion has developed in the victims some of the values we require to sustain a different world - solidarity, humaneness, the spirit of sharing, technique of survival, readiness for risk-taking, endurance and steely determination in the midst of adversities. In the world of the victims, unlike in the world of globalisation, the good does not get identified with the “successful”. The good and the just are the ideals the world needs to relentlessly strive after.

There ought to be a moral restraint on nationalism. This is not only because of the violence, oppression, war and destruction an emotionally charged national chauvinism could cause to others who do not belong to the nation, but also because of the oppression nationalism could cause to the poor and the weak within its own boundaries.

One of the unfortunate things we are witnessing today in global politics is the absence of even a modicum of ethics and moral consideration. The Chanakkiyan or Machiavellian approach to power and expediency seem to rule the political realm under the guise of nationalism. The primary way of practising ethics in the ambit of politics in general and nationalism in particular is transcendence and openness. The ‘religious’ character with which nationalism is vested could blinker the vision and call for allegiance of the people for violence, crimes and inhumanity. There will be no hesitation to resort to ethnic cleansing, in order to uphold the ‘nation’ and its interests. Under the label of “anti-national” or “unpatriotic”, critical voices that awaken a nation from the nationalist passion to reason and sobriety, could be stifled. Like Noam Chomsky there are, fortunately, men and women in every country who critically challenge an uncritical and anti-humanist nationalism. 

The secular ideal of democracy is often procedural and formal. If democracy is the prevalence of the will of the majority in governance, then this is a very dangerous conception, since under the cloak of democracy what would happen is the “tyranny of the majority”. Rightly did John Stuart Mill in his time raise the critical question, “how could a minority be free when it is forced to conform to the will of the majority?” The institution of formal democracy could co-habit with religious nationalism of the majority. In this way, religious nationalism becomes even more dangerous, because it can easily wear the democratic mask to impose itself on the rest of the identities in a polity. All this shows a mere liberal and secular nationalism alone cannot respond to the issue of diversity and plurality of identities.

This Article Is A Part Of The Utopia Series. Utopia is not an unreal figment of imagination, or a chimera we chase in futility. It is the projection of another real order of things, a different set of values, and a new shape of the world and society. The suppressed identities, women, minorities, Dalits and tribals and all those who are marginalised in any way project their utopias. Utopia leaps out from the shoulder of may struggles to glimpse and experience the new and the different. Critique is indissociable from utopias.

Collected & Contributed By- 

Agriti Shrivastava,

Article Analyst, FSA

CNLU, Patna

Read more »

Defining the Nation and Interpreting History

        Defining India and its history is something like the definition given by an Irishman when he was asked what the word “trousers” would be- singular or plural. Loud and clear came forth the answer, ‘It is singular at the top and plural at the bottom!’[1] The self-understanding of India and its history is undergoing today precisely this experience of singular and plural. But unfortunately, instead of arriving at a balance between unity and plurality, the developments at the political, cultural, religious, economic and ideological levels are tilting towards a singular view of India. Consequently, what is projected as the history of India is a history that presents itself, in fact, as a view from the top, unmindful of the plurality and diversity at the bottom.

Today, we, as a nation, are involved in a struggle for the past. This struggle in great part also defines our different conceptions about the nation. Even more, it portrays the conflicts of power among different segments of the people.

The communities comprising the nation may have different backgrounds and origins. But the point is that today they are a nation together, and none of them could be excluded. It is in their mutuality and interchange that they produce meaning and significance of the nation. When the attempt is made to define the nation and its history in majoritarian terms, it raises the critical question: Whose Nation? Whose History? Faced with the ideology of majoritarianism, marginal groups like the Dalits and tribals raise critical questions, so too other linguistic and ethnic groups.

What we have attempted then is to shift the attention to the everyday life of the people and to break out of the frame of reference in which the past is created to serve a political, social and cultural agenda of domination. The interaction and transactions of the past in which identities were not rigidly defined and the borders were open and flexible. Further, the interactions among communities were never solely reduced to religious identity; instead there were many layers of identities with which to relate and interact. Moreover, there were many regional and local narratives and histories. These have been an integral part of the life of the marginal people like the Dalits and the tribals. A reconstruction of the past taking into account all these aspects, is the necessary condition for the diverse groups to own the nation and its history. The reconstruction of history will go a long way to remove the alienation and exclusion being practiced today in the name of majoritarianism.

The everyday approach to the history of nation serves also to draw out the ethical implications of historiography. Besides respecting professional propriety in historical enquiry, which is an ethical demand, the reconstruction of the past should have as its interpretative key the building up of communities. The social and communitarian responsibility on the part of historians is an ethical obligation as well. Consequently, the manipulation and exploitation of history for communal conflicts is an unethical practice. Any imputation of guilt and accusation drawn from an ideological reading of the past and levelled against particular groups or communities is not ethically justifiable but politically dangerous.

Finally, we are at the moment of re-defining both the nation and its history. We cannot allow the nation and history to be hijacked by any one single group, community or religion. To create a nation of communities is a long-term project which requires new criteria and new terms of reference.   

---

[1] The anecdote is from A.K. Ramanujan Cf. Sunil Khilnani, The Idea of India, Penguin Books, Delhi, 1999, p.6

This Article Is A Part Of The Utopia Series. Utopia is not an unreal figment of imagination, or a chimera we chase in futility. It is the projection of another real order of things, a different set of values, and a new shape of the world and society. The suppressed identities, women, minorities, Dalits and tribals and all those who are marginalised in any way project their utopias. Utopia leaps out from the shoulder of may struggles to glimpse and experience the new and the different. Critique is indissociable from utopias.

Collected & Contributed By- 

Agriti Shrivastava,

Article Analyst, FSA

CNLU, Patna

Read more »

SENSE OF SECURITY OR CIVIL RIGHTS :- An Analysis on the Paradox of Anti-Terrorist Legislation

       

         In the modern context of our day to day lives on must come to terms with the fact that security is a concept that is both misleading and superficial in nature. When we use the word security one may have different conceptions of security be it physical, emotional or even financial security. Over the years we tend to associate the security in our lives as an obligation that the government needs to fulfill. At the very least we expect the government to provide us a certain degree of physical security to protect us from intrusion, assault, theft or any act that could be dilatory to our lives as a whole. Now let’s consider this in coherence with the concept of our rights. In India we have a plethora of rights the most important of them the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution the right to move, the right to reside in any part of the country, the right to form groups and the right to free speech and expression. These rights give us a certain power one may even say that these rights provide us with security. But the truth is that security is unattainable be it in India where you have riots or bomb blasts occurring on a daily basis or even in a country like the US where you have instances like the Boston bombings or even in a country like Iraq where drone attacks make the concept of security look like small child’s dream. Notwithstanding the frequency of these individual events the fact remains that now government can guarantee security what it can do is provide a sense of security. The enactment of the PATRIOT Act in the US or the exponential growth of their defense budget all contribute to one thing, instilling in the common public a “sense of security”. It can be seen in speeches by politicians as well during rally’s. The reasoning behind this is that this sense of security is what drives public participation as well as public support. A simple way of understanding this is by picturing a situation where any government that couldn’t guarantee the security of its people has stood in power. Now that one sees this provision of the sense of physical security as a government’s prime function we have to contrast it with the security that arises from individual rights perhaps they are both mutually inclusive. The rights are simply instruments that give us the power to demand what weare already entitled to. Now in a post 26/11 era we still hear shouts regarding new and more stringent anti-terror laws and their aim is in totality to promote the very sense of security which is at the end of the day a government’s prerogative. The burning question is what does a government do when you enact a legislation that goes against these rights yet looks to promote security which in turn indirectly supports these rights. This is the paradox that one is confronted with when dealing with anti-terrorist legislation. The Anti-terrorism legislation designs various types of laws passed in the aim of fighting terrorism. 

               

  They usually, if not always, follow specific bombings or assassinations. Anti-terrorism legislation usually includes specific amendments allowing the state to bypass its own legislation when fighting terrorism-related crimes, under the grounds of necessity. Because of this suspension of regular procedure, such legislation is sometimes criticized as a form of “loisscélérates” which may unjustly repress all kinds of popular protests.  Then rises the question in focus can any there be an sustainable model in which both rights and the sense of security can mutually co-exist. In USA post 9/11 there was widespread support of the PATRIOT act however in a few years after its enactment people started protesting against unlawful detention under the act, evasion of privacy and absence of government accountability owing to lack of transparency which were seen as a violation of rights guaranteed under the constitution of the US. The obvious answer given in reply to it was “national security” which brings us to the paradox of anti-terrorist legislation. Niccolo Machiavelli said that when citizens forget about the destruction wrecked in the past and the tools to stop it then are used against the people to suppress them. Then only two outcomes are possible either the state becomes a tyrant and people are forced to rebel or people continue to protest till and the state obliges, subservient to the will of its people. Though the latter may seem more desirable in truth it puts the state back into a vulnerable position and there arises the question once again is the sense of security more important or are people’s rights? One may state that in the absence of the sense of security anarchy may ensue making it impossible to enforce any rights at all. The other side may argue that when one begins valuing the common good more than individual rights then it destroys the purpose of rights itself and a state fails in upholding the ideals that stands on.  True that no right can be absolute but at the same time is a right expendable? In India the latest amendment to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act drew the ire of several sections of the public calling it draconian as it imposes restrictions on various fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution. The question we must ask ourselves is whether any such law like the UAPA (amendment) or the PATRIOT Act which is enacted in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist act, which is by its very nature “ex post facto”, can be legitimate in the long run. Does the need for public safety outweigh the fear of use or misuse of such an Act?  Can we have safeguards to prevent misuse or is the scope for misuse and its possibility in itself a disincentive. Are these thoughts even considered when making such legislation? The major issue in such situations is the need to go extreme and unwillingness to find a middle ground where both can be attained. Yes the governments may say security is of the utmost importance but by enacting legislation that is counterproductive to the concept of individual rights itself a form of terrorism that a state inflicts on its citizens irrespective of motive. By oppressing its people through such legislation is the government fulfilling the goals of the terrorists themselves? Some would argue that not enacting strong legislature which in turn makes people vulnerable to such attacks in the first place. Both situations may come across as lose-lose situations, but that doesn’t have to be the case, the solution lies in finding a middle ground between these two extremes many point out the reinforcement of local law enforcement institutions rather than creating new ones others point out to better training of officers to handle these events. Perhaps it is a hard task but it is still up to us to decide if we want to strive for a balance or oscillate to an extreme.

Author- Aditya Mitra

             2nd Year,

             School of Law,

             Christ University

Read more »

Rethinking Nationalism with the Poor

             Religious nationalism is spreading fast in several parts of the world. In each context, there are specific reasons for the ascendancy of this brand of nationalism. It has engendered serious conflicts and violence. It is a permanent threat to the survival of the poor and the marginalised, their identity and dignity. The new avatar of nationalism creates serious polarisation in terms of insider/outsider, we/they. Furthermore, it has a dangerous homogenising tendency that does not allow for difference and pluralism. It functions by exploiting religious symbols, rites and myths. In the process, it violently co-opts or suppresses other identities. On the other hand, secular nationalism is supposed to transcend the sphere of religion and religious identities. It is centred on a separation of religion and politics in its strict interpretation, and equi-distance of the state from religion in its more liberal version. It relies on the basic equality of all citizens. The crucial question is whether secular nationalism could be a response to religious nationalism and can stem its tide. 

While secular nationalism has its own points of strength, it seems to be inadequate to face up to the challenge posed by religious nationalism. Specifically, there are many doubts about its capacity to defend the cause of the poor and the oppressed. There is, in the first place, a general opinion that “secular” is a Western concept that is ill at ease in our Indian context. The conception of neutrality implied in the understanding of secular is formal in nature. We need a substantive conception of equality that would take into account the incontestable fact of plurality of groups and identities, especially the vulnerable groups. Granting that this is possible within the frame of secular nationalism, we cannot, however, ignore the fact that the “secular” has become a highly debated question when it comes to interpretation. As a result, strangely though, the religious nationalists themselves could claim to be true secularists and brand others as “pseudo-secularists”. I mean to say that the secular approach is preoccupied so much with the negativities of religion that it is not able to tap the humanistic message religions have to offer.

We need to move in the direction of an inclusive humanistic nationalism that would uphold the cause of the poor and the marginalised. It will create the space for religious insights to play their humanising role in society. Humanistic nationalism suggests the particularity of nation and fuses it with the universalistic vision which is very important for the encounter of people and culture. It will ensure, within the nation itself, that no group of people is neglected or left out. It will be particularly attentive to the marginalised and vulnerable groups by setting in operation social equity.

Finally, one of the avenues open for a religion’s involvement is the collaboration with new social movements, which go in the direction of secularity and social equity. These movements try to bring ethics in action and transcend the narrow boundaries of caste and creed. Its support to humanistic nationalism would be in the form of fostering pluralism that is very crucial for harmonious and just inter-relationship among the groups and identities subsumed under the nation. 

Collected & Contributed By- 

Agriti Shrivastava,

Article Analyst, FSA

CNLU, Patna

Read more »