Backpage

ANY expectation that the artificially manufactured hysteria over the many meanings of nationalism would subside, given both the fickleness of media generated public attention and the ‘release’ of JNUSU President, Kanhaiya Kumar on bail, has proved mistaken. If at all, all those committed to ‘isolating and weeding out’ individuals and views seen by them as promoting ‘anti-national’ sentiments, seem keen to further up the ante.

In a bizarre and chilling move, JNU professor, Nivedita Menon, highly regarded as both a political theorist and feminist activist, is sought to be pilloried for views expressed in her lecture on nationalism. The ‘crime’ – pointing out that many countries around the world look at Jammu and Kashmir as ‘disputed’ territory and do not uncritically accept the official Indian assertion that ‘J&K is an integral part of the Indian Union’. Unfortunately, in the linguistic slippage that invariably accompanies highly charged political discourse, a statement of fact is read and presented as a call to dismember India. Not only have sections of the TV media carried out a campaign to this effect, affiliates of the BJP have registered a FIR accusing her of promoting sedition. And while, so far, the police have not initiated any action on the FIR, the possibility that they might do so, is kept tantalizingly alive.

In an equally reprehensible move, the same TV channel aired a programme on a recently held mushaira in which scientist and poet Gauhar Raza was described as a dangerous anti-national for his poem on the challenge of maintaining religious and cultural diversity in an atmosphere increasingly vitiated by intolerance and hatred. Gauhar, it appears, was singled out, not only because of his name but also because of his consistent espousal of a secular and plural culture and his opposition to religious and social bigotry. The fact that his wife, Shabnam Hashmi, and her organization, Anhad, has been active on these issues ever since the Ram Janmabhoomi mobilizations and the demolition of the Babri Masjid, further condemns him by association. These cases provide a clear indication of a heightened politics of polarization and a targeting of all those who oppose our slippage into McCarthyism.

The pride of place must, however go to the deployment of the exhortation, Bharat Mata ki Jai. In clearly what is a first, the Maharashtra State Assembly voted to expel a fellow legislator for the remainder of the session for ‘refusing’ to chant the slogan. He was, he clarified, more than willing to support alternative slogans glorifying the country such as Jai Hind, among others, but was vehemently opposed to being forced into acquiescing and granting legitimacy to what he understood as a ‘religious’ slogan on the demand of Hindu nationalist forces.

That a state legislature should have even deemed appropriate to debate, and vote upon the merits of such a proposal is disturbing enough. What makes matters far more dangerous is that the proposal to expel the offending member, Waris Pathan of the MIM, from the Assembly was supported not merely by the ruling BJP-Shiv Sena combine but MLAs of the Nationalist Congress Party and the Indian National Congress as well. Evidently on issues that matter, like upholding nationalism and national pride, all ‘right-thinking’ politicians stand together, whatever their differences on other issues. It is also apparent that none of the legislators had deemed it worthwhile to listen to poet Javed Akhtar’s farewell speech in the Rajya Sabha, pointing out the subtle distinction between the ‘right to’ chant a slogan and the enforced ‘duty to’ do so.

The blatant anti-constitutionality of the political move to enshrine a slogan as a legitimate marker of nationalism does not seem to have disturbed our esteemed law makers. Nor, for instance, did any of these worthies seem to be worried that their actions were in direct contravention of the position articulated by their national leaders in Parliament. Surely the Congress MLAs could not have already forgotten the stirring speeches of Rahul Gandhi in both Parliament and elsewhere, though it must be admitted that political memory is invariably fickle and context determined and that any search for ideological coherence and continuity in the actions of political parties is likely to be fruitless.

Should one be thus prepared for similar demands being raised in different state legislatures for creating new litmus tests for nationalism/patriotism, adding to the existing, equally condemnable, markers around cricket and culinary preferences? Possibly members of the Punjab State Assembly can consider adopting the Sikh war cry, Jo bole so Nihal, Sat Sri Akal as the new supplementary oath at the swearing in ceremony and Jai Durga might serve as the new marker for those in Bengal. One wonders where this leaves Prime Minister Modi and his evocative exhortations at the recently held World Sufi Convention in Delhi?

Harsh Sethi