Since the last few  weeks, post the incidents in the JNU (Jawaharlal Nehru University),  we have had a raging debate going on various platforms of social and  main stream media on what is “Nationalism”. On one hand we have  Pratap Bhanu Mehta criticizing the government, "It is using  nationalism to crush constitutional patriotism, legal tyranny to  crush dissent, political power to settle petty scores, and  administrative power to destroy institutions”. On the other anchor  journalist Rajdeep Sardesai said, "I am proud to be  ‘anti-national".

This article  includes the definition of nationalism, an understanding of the two  major forms of nationalism in the West and concept of nationalism in  India.

First is a simple  definition of Nationalism as provided by Merriam Webster

: a feeling that  people have of being loyal to and proud of their country often with  the belief that it is better and more important than other countries.

: a desire by a  large group of people (such as people who share the same culture,  history, language, etc.) to form a separate and independent nation of  their own.

Nationalism is a  complicated issue. Analysts/Experts have not been able to come up  with a universally agreeable definition to define this feeling and  the subsequent role it plays in society. Nationalism as is largely  understood in the “West” is a specifically modern phenomenon  which came into existence in the 18th and 19th centuries. (In  his book 'Being Different' Rajiv Malhotra defines the term West as  "The West” is cultures and civilizations stemming from a  rather forced fusion of the biblical traditions of ancient Israel and  the classical ones of Greece and Rome".)

According to Ernest  Gellner nationalism is a direct outcome of the industrial revolution  in the West which lead to a fundamental change in the overall  structure of society.

But is Nationalism  understood and perceived the same way by all Western scholars?  Nationalism started off as a positive contribution towards the  development of a liberal democracy. Scholars like Alexis de  Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill saw nationalism as a great source of  social solidarity and political stability in a liberal society.  Giuseppe Mazzini the 19th century liberal philosopher from Italy was  sure that some form of democratic nationalism was a necessary  prerequisite for world peace.

This changed  drastically in the 20th century, with the rise of Nazism and Fascism  in  Europe which lead to wars, ethnic cleansing and the  Holocaust resulting in a deep scar on the Western psyche. It resulted  into a majority view that nationalism is a direct impediment in the  development of a liberal democracy.

Post the 20th  century horror of Germany we have two camps in the West. The first  camp comprising of Beiner, Habermas and Hobsbawm are of the view that  nationalism is a road block that needs to be completely eliminated  while others like Dahrendorf, Kymlicka and Tamir are trying to find a  middle ground where liberal democratic values and nationalism  co-exist mutually. ("Russian  and Euro-Asian Bulletin Vol.7 No.12 December 1997. Published by the  Contemporary Europe Research Centre University of Melbourne. Two  types of Nationalism in Europe? Stefan Auer Dec 1997".)

Now let us try to  understand the two major and most known forms of Nationalism that are  known in the West:

1. Civic Nationalism / Liberal Nationalism: Civic nationalism is the idea that considers a nation as a large set of people who are bound together by a political entity with equal rights. It rejects the notion of a common ethnic ancestral identity. The best examples of civic nationalism are the United States of America and France. John Stuart Mill is one of the most famous Civic Nationalists. Obviously there are subtle differences between American and French Nationalism too. While both claim for equal treatment of its own citizens they have a deep superiority complex woven into them. Americans draw a great sense of pride from "American Exceptionalism". In the words of political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset America was “the first new nation". French Nationalism is based upon the principles of "liberty, equality, fraternity” which were used by Napoleon Bonaparte to expand his territory on the basis of the superiority of French values.

2. Ethnic nationalism: The basis of this form of nationalism is that ethnic groups on the basis of a common ethnicity like a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry can form a nation state. The nations that are a direct result of this form of Nationalism are Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Russia etc.

The common factor  found between both ethnic nationalists and civic nationalists is  their distinct superiority complex. Both take pride in the inherent  superiority of their identities which result in the expansionist  tendencies of the Western society at large. American exceptionalism  has been used by American Neo Conservatives to wage wars under the  garb of "giving  democracy" to the others.

Now that we know the  two major forms of Nationalism known in the West it is time we ask  ourselves some very important questions. Do we need the concept of  Western Nationalism ? If not, what is Indian Nationalism ? Is it the  same as Nationalism as we understand it in the West? Do we fall into  the above categories of Civic Nationalism or Ethnic Nationalism ?

The current Indian  Leftist Marxist thinking considers Indian Nationalism as a reaction  to British colonialism. It considers it to be product of the  independence movement, thus a recent phenomena. In fact they go to  the extent of stating that it is the British that who India.  Otherwise we were a collection of different princely states which had  nothing in common.

The Leftists fail to  recognize the inherent Integral Unity of "Bharata".  This Integral unity stems from the Dharma traditions that are steeped  in the metaphysics of the non separation of all reality, physical and  non physical, from the divine. 1

Conversely, Western  models of Nationalism are a result of a synthetic unity, at best, a  convenience, it misses out on the much deeper bonds that hold people  together across the boundaries of hierarchies and diversities of  various kinds. 1

The Indian  Civilization is more than 3500 years united by a sacred geography and  common Dharmic Culture. The uniqueness of India lies in its dynamic  multi cultural, multi lingual, multi ethnic, multi racial society  bonded together by the concept of Bandhu.

Bandhu is a concept  used to explain how the whole and parts are held together in integral  unity. This idea of integral unity, with the whole manifesting in the  parts, and they in turn aspiring to unite with the whole – is  reflected in all facets of Dharmic systems, including in their  philosophy, science, religion, ethics, spirituality, art, music,  dance, education, literature, oral narratives, politics, marriage,  economics and social structures.1  It is this Bandhuta why 51/108 Shakti Peethams and the four  Peethams by Sankatacharya are located in the four directions of  India. It is this very Bandhuta that made Adi Sankaracharya establish  four Peethams in different directions of India. So also, because  India is a singular sacred geographical unit that twelve  Jyotirlingams located in different areas of India?

It is time that we  reevaluate the Western notions of the Nation State and Nationalism  completely. Indians cannot be classified as Civic or Ethnic  Nationalists. This brings me to the concept of Constitutional  Patriotism that was presented by Prakash Bhanu Mehta. A  constitutional patriots loyalty for his country will always be  conditional. A constitutional patriot will be bound to a particular  document which can be altered by a simple parliamentary majority.

India at best can be  called a Civilisational State where its citizens are bound by Dharma.  It is time we float the idea of Dharmic nationalism i.e. based on the  principle of mutual respect. We will take pride in the values of our  civilization but not impose his views on others. One of the inherent  problems with Western forms of Nationalism is the deep superiority  complex embedded in them which then leads to expansionist tendencies.  They view societies that do not conform to their view as barbaric and   backward which can be saved with western style democracy and  values.

Dharmic Nationalism  will not lead to dogmatism. Rather it will lead to the creation of an  open architecture which will include the world’s most multi  cultural, multi lingual, multi racial, multi ethnic society. A  Dharmic Nationalist will be someone who welcomes debate, mutual  respect, evolution and fluidity. At the same time Dharmic Nationalism  will have to protect itself from being too elastic and falling into  fragmentation and relativism i.e. the attitude of anything goes or  sameness. 1 A Dharmic Nationalist will believe in Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam i.e. the  whole world is one family. But the family metaphor is about mutual  respect for internal diversity, not for sameness and homogenization. 1

Another key  difference is that Dharmic Nationalism is not related to material  benefits. The average Indian considers his country as his Mata. The  love for a Mata is unconditional because the Mata nourishes you and  provides you with everything that you have in your life without  expecting anything in return. You owe your existence to your Mata. An  average Indians connection to his Matra Bhumi is very different   from that of a westerner. It is fascinating how Indians even after  they leave India tend to identify themselves as Indians. While  America might be someone’s Karma Bhumi, India will always be their  Matra Bhumi. What makes them call themselves Indian is the Dharmic  Bandhuta. The Indian bond cuts across boundaries and nations. Each  and every Indian connects to the motherland via Dharma.

References
1. Being Different  by Rajiv Malhotra

Also read
1. Different parts  of India contributed to its Religious life
2. The battle  between secular India and Bharat