Giving Nationalism new Definitions!

If we can manage to arrange a satellite surveillance over the current discussions happening in India then I’m pretty sure that the conclusions will be hilarious. probably we would question like what has happened to people? especially to the political class. it seems that a  common man who does his daily tasks with keen interest is far more intelligent than these so-called leaders of this country. from the very beginning of the present government, the BJP, and it’s affiliate groups especially RSS have tried very hard to make things communal. some of the examples can be remembered as the beef ban, making the study of Geeta in certain schools compulsory and now it’s about nationalism.

quote-the-difference-between-patriotism-and-nationalism

Here if you are not nationalist in  a certain way then you are anti-national and a case of sedition can be there against you. but if you go with a certain well-defined method then there will be no issue. you can do anything you want but at last, just you show your nationalism then there will be no problem for you. the current debate is about the definition of nationalism. it’s about who is nationalist or not? few days back Mr. Owaisi, a politician, declined to chant the slogan “Bharat Mata Ki Jay” which literally translates as “mother India be victorious”. it was the very slogan which was used by freedom fighters during the British rule to revive the feeling of nationalism among masses and there were many other too. after having been said this by Mr. Owasi, the ruling party got a chance to politicise the issue further.

hy12owaise_2197806f
Mr Owaisi

though later Mr. Owaisi chanted another slogan which meant the same thing, just the difference was of the words. he had done his job by creating the unnecessary controversy. it could be ignored by the politician but no. it was the golden chance to strike another communal move by the party and Sangh. then after some time, a well-known Indian actor turned politician, Mr. Anupam(AnuPM) Kher tweeted that “the only definition for bharatwasis(Indians) is chanting the slogan, ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jay’ and other are escape routes”.

which will certainly not be acceptable to all people. India is a diverse land. here different people live with different belief systems. so they can’t behave or act in a specified way. but we can understand the situation of Mr. Anupam Kher, he has to do something for the party and perhaps this is some of the best things he can do by giving fanatic and unacceptable ideas.

anupam-kher112
Mr Anupam Kher

I am not against chanting “Bharat Mata ki Jay” but you can’t force it on me. I will be nationalist my way and there is no need of any definition from others. and I do think that being patriotic/nationalist  can be a virtue but lack of patriotism is not a vice. we can contribute to the well-being of this country without being nationalist too. in India, people are very prone to be deceived by the issues like this. if someone gives the ideas like this, they think that this the best person for the country. but in the true sense, he is harming the country’s mind greatly.

albert-einstein-on-world-government

two days back I was watching a debate on nationalism on one of the news channels. over there one of the panelists was RSS thinker. when he was asked that why it is necessary to chant a particular slogan. he said that currently there is the lack of nationalist feeling among people and to revive that we need to chant the slogan. which is completely an invalid argument. I don’t see any lack of the nationalist feeling anywhere. he also said that it is the duty of every citizen to chant that slogan which was a disaster from his side. he is no one to tell people what is their duty. they know their duties better than him.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Giving Nationalism new Definitions!

  1. Nationalism is a necessary evil and I applaud you in attempting to redefine it within a modern context.
    Without nationalism, nations have no right to geo-political power.
    nations or by its formal title, nation-states are defined as the intersection between a nation and a state. A nation is an ethnic cultural, identity and a state is the political entity. Therefore a nation-state derives its legitimacy as a sovereign nation.
    Breaking down of national barriers is beneficial towards the creation of a global homogenized culture (read cultural imperialism), the short term result is the destabilization of world order.

    Perhaps a redefining nationalism is not necessary, but it would certainly be helpful towards world unity

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Hello, dear Nam H Nguyen!
    thanks a ton for the valuable input. I really appreciate that.

    and regarding the issue of nationalism, I have many issues of my own. but the main problem is that as far as I understand people go on following the idea of nationalism without knowing the difference between the nation and a nation state. and for me, the most harmful thing is when we attach our sentiments with the nation. we need to be reasonable about that.

    and for me,the whole universe is an organic unit and there is not need to create a separation between nations. I agree with you as a short term result it will cause some disorder but that can be handled by an international entity.
    on the name of nationalism, the ruling parties go on imposing their ideologies which are very harmful to any democracy.

    thanks for the visit again 🙂

    Love and light ❤
    Vikram 🙂

    Like

I'm delighted to hear from you!

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s