Posted by shivamkesari
Indians are stirred over the incident of JNU, and Kanhaiya Kumar has been made the central character behind the whole chaos. Social sites are filled with status updates, stories and comments in favour and against of Kanhaiya. It seems that with this incident Patriotism of every citizen of India is on the climax. I can’t, neither have right to, scrutinise patriotism or nationalist feelings of our fellow citizens but still have constitutional Right to freedom of speech and expression to have my words.
I am trying to define Nationalism in my own perception and it is bound to vary person to person.
In sociology ‘Nation’ means a territory or part of territory which is resided by people of distinct ethnicity and culture and they consists majority of the population of that territory. It may or may not coincide with ‘Country’s’ boundary. In this definition it will be perfect to define India as a ‘Federal of different Nations’. India is a habitat for more than 500 distinct tribes and
ethnics. Though flow of time and ages had made them similar in one way or other but they are different with their own history of origin and life evolution. Many tribes have known connection to tribes of different countries. E.g. Munda tribe of Jharkhand are known to be of Austro origin and their language are very much similar to tribes of Australia than to India. Similarly, residents of Ladakh and North-east are of Mongol origin. Races of people of North India and South India are clearly distinct. History of races/tribes/ethnics had been preserved by Languages and cultures of the people. The territory they occupy constitute a distinct nation. Protection, preservation and defence of ‘Nation’ by them may be Nationalism to them. Patriotism and Nationalism have almost same meaning in English Vocabulary. Nation and country are different. Here Country is similar to a rural settlements. Social Science call India a ‘State’ comprising of different nations.
In political science definition of a ‘Nation’ is – A territory bounded by definite international boundary, which can be modified by Parliament through adequate legislative process, and is a Union of states. Here a Nation is very much similar to a country. India is called a Nation/Country/federal of states.
In geography there is no term as Nation. Its talk about a Country with definite political international boundary.
Lets come back to the Kanhaiya Issue. As people’s sentiments are attached with this case, so its better to take sociological meaning of Nation which shall be logical as this subject is itself ‘science of society’. India being a federal or union of different ‘Nation’ and resident of that territorial nation have their own ‘Nationalism’ and Constitutional Right to protect and preserve them. Constitution by DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY had bounded State (Government) to do the needful to protect and preserve them. If nationalist feeling of someone arise and he/she dissent politically against the government or the state, it shall be accepted. Effort shall be made to find the cause of that dissent rather than to suppress their voice. More the voices and their concerns are suppressed more aloud and violent they will be. As they had already said- ‘ Kitne Afzal Maroge, Har ghar se Afzal Niklega’.
India is a peculiar state. Hardly the truth is being shown, or may be if it had been shown on some media channel its hard to believe it in this biased fourth pillar of democracy. I am not concerned what the truth is, but more concerned to what Nationalism shall mean. We have pre directed mind set, which always seeks to find and even get success in finding what we perceive as oneself. One such dimension of thought is ‘India is United’ and our all vision and senses are processed in that way only. Yes, India is united as union of states with definite territorial boundary but only in Chapter 1 of our constitution and which stands amendable, and that too by just simple majority. Even our constituent assembly of 1946 and Constitution of India Act, 1949 had given such scope. Exchange of conclaves between India and Bangladesh is an example.
In my opinion every such act are justified if it leads to peace and prosperity of the Humankind, no matter in which country or nation they reside. Sentiments of people from rest part of the country shall not undermine and dictate sentiments of the people from the concerned land. Since Independence the politics in India of gathering vote bank has ruined every sphere of life and kept alive many issues which may had been settled peacefully, though with territorial loss to India.
My thought and action are dictated for the peace, prosperity and welfare of the living beings of the world, still I think my nationalism and patriotism is only bounded by the Constitution of the Land I reside, I shall strive to follow the laws, rules and regulation of the territory. No institution other than Indian judiciary, in proper legal, way has right to judge my course of action and activity. People are free to dissent against me but no right to interfere in my freedom, rather register FIR and let court decide my faith.