Gurmehar Kaur row: Social cohesion takes a hit when concepts of nationhood, patriotism are attacked

With Union Minister of State for Home Kiren Rijiju and cricketer Virender Sehwag joining issue, Gurmehar Kaur, the young student of Lady Shri Ram College, Delhi University, is now a “national celebrity”, a status the then president of Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU), Kanhaiya Kumar, enjoyed for a few months around this time last year. Now, Kumar, whom a section of the media had projected as a “genius” and “the best-ever public speaker” of the country who could give Prime Minister Narendra Modi sleepless nights, does not enthuse even the seminar-circuits in Delhi. Only time will tell whether Gurmehar’s “fame” will outlast that of Kumar, but one thing I can predict with certainty is that she will be sought after by radical students’ organisations like AISA, Leftists students’ bodies like the SFI and AISF and the Congress outfit NSUI to join their ranks and contest the forthcoming elections to the Delhi University Students Union (DUSU) against the “fascist” ABVP, related to the ruling BJP.

In fact, Gurmehar now has become the shining example for all those who think that in 2014, India entered the dark ages and nothing right can happen in this country until and unless Modi is dislodged from power. One does not know whether Gurmehar shares this view, but, to be fair to her, she came to the scene amid the slugfest over the issue of “nationalism” that keeps the pots of the three universities in the national capital – Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi University (DU) and Jamia Islamia – boiling, to the delight of the Opposition leaders, particularly the likes of Rahul Gandhi, Arvind Kejriwal, Sitaram Yechury and Mamata Banerjee.

One is not going into the details of the circumstances at the Ramjas College of the DU that has led to the current round of controversies over the nationalism. There cannot be any unanimity on whether the proposed seminar on “dissent”, to be addressed by some controversial student leaders from the JNU, should have been allowed to be held at the Ramjas College; but no rational person can ever condone the subsequent violence that erupted at the college.

In my considered opinion, if the violence, whatever may be its source, at the college was bad, the worse has been the subsequent politicisation of the issue. But the worst is the manner in which the term “nationalism” is being cheapened to be equated with “fascism” by those who claim themselves to be “liberals.” For these “liberals”, freedom of expression or right of dissent is absolute and nothing must be done to tamper with these rights. And these “liberals” think that ever since Modi assumed office, this freedom to dissent has been under systematic attack by the fascist forces, most of whom happen to be related to the ruling establishment.

Gurmehar has every right to criticise the ABVP and its actions at Ramjas College. But, what does she mean when she says that her father, a senior military officer who was killed during the war with Pakistan after its takeover of Kargil in 1999, was “not killed by Pakistan, but by war”? Does she try to convey that Kargil war was caused by India and Pakistan was innocent? As far as I can see, her statement may not have any other explanation. And that means that for Gurmehar, Kargil, and hence Kashmir of which it is a part, was not worth fighting over.

One does not know whether Gurmehar will mind if Kashmir is forcibly grabbed by Pakistan and gets azaadi from India. But one is sure that many of the votaries of dissent for whom she is expressing solidarity will not at all mind if Kashmir’s fundamentalist secessionists eventually succeed in their game-plan. The campus unrest in the national capital, whether it was at JNU last year or at DU this year, is intrinsically linked with this point – “dissenters” asserting over their right to express the view that New Delhi has no business to consider the Kashmiris, tribals in central India and people in North East as Indians if they want to break away. For these dissenters, “nationalism” is a dirty word and those who uncompromisingly work and advocate for India’s unity and integrity are “fascists”. In fact, these “dissenters” define “fascism” as a governmental system that asserts complete power and emphasises aggressive nationalism and often racism (Hindutva) or cultural homogeneity.

But is it the true meaning of dissent or freedom of expression in a state or for that matter civilised society? I am afraid, that is not the case. Social cohesion is inevitably damaged when the concepts of nationhood and patriotism are attacked. Our common identity as Indians overcomes many of differences on ethnic, religious and ideological grounds. In fact, the glory of diversities and peaceful existence in India stems from this concept of India as a nation. This diversity was never separated and pulled apart, as togetherness was considered always important. “Togetherness” is the Indian culture, and no true Indian will want to see their culture ignored, insulted and dismissed, something our so-called dissenters are indulging in.

Nationalism is based on the premise that a country’s culture is worth preserving, not to speak of maintaining its unity and integrity. It is not fascism or racism as long as one does not talk of imposing the superiority of one’s nation and culture over others. Nationalists need not be mocked at just because they feel that people’s bond with their country imposes moral obligations both ways: Citizens have a duty to love and serve their country, and governments are duty-bound to protect their own people. There is nothing necessarily racist or fascist about this arrangement (“social contract”). Having a shared sense of identity, norms, and history generally promotes trust and norms on the basis of which a society is run. Take away these norms and there will be no society of country. That is why sociologist Émile Durkheim had pointed out the dangers or ills of “anomie” or normlessness. It is only with high trust, which, in turn, happens to be high social capital that a society or nation assumes greatness.

As the most important component or feature of a society, the “State” is also based on trust called the Constitution, which provides both rights and duties for the citizens. And as regards rights, nowhere in our Constitution, there are absolute rights. In fact, nowhere in the world (I am not talking of the countries like China, Russia, Arab Sheikhdoms, Iran and Pakistan) does one find absolute rights. So our so-called dissenters are plainly wrong to say that the Indian state has no power to intervene “if, and I repeat if, a person has said Hindustan murdabad, that the state is tyrannical and it is better to do away with it, necessary to overthrow it”.

And here lies the issue. There is a very clear distinction between being anti-establishment and being anti-national. In my days at JNU (I was a student leader too), we never debated on the sanctity of India’s nationhood, its unity, integrity and democratic political system, let alone condoning those who challenged these concepts. What we debated was a given political regime’s polices. As we opposed an Indira Gandhi or a Rajiv Gandhi then, there must not be any restriction whatsoever on anybody opposing present Modi or his government’s policies or acts of omission and commission. However, things become different when the criticisms degenerate and turn anti-national to the extent of challenging the very core of our nationhood.

Incidentally, the votaries of dissent in our country are, in reality, most intolerant of dissents to their views themselves. When they criticise, it is freedom of speech; but when they are criticised it becomes intolerance. When they question the Hindutva, it becomes secular; but when Islamic practices are questioned, they become communal. When they talk of majority being more restrained towards and accommodating of the interests of the minorities, that is true democracy; but they are not prepared to accept tour democratic Constitution’s Article 19(2) under which the State may make a law imposing “reasonable restrictions” on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression “in the interest of” the “security”, “public order”, and “friendly relations” with foreign states.

As I have argued always, India’s perception-makers are overwhelmingly dominated by academicians, artists, journalists and contributors who are moulded in what is said to be the Nehruvian framework or establishment – “Left/Liberal/Secular” and this establishment literally hates Modi, BJP or for that matter anybody who has an alternate worldview. In fact, many of these perception-makers (our “eminent” artists, historians, civil activists and journalists) were enjoying many ‘privileges’ facilitated by the previous governments; these are now denied under Modi. No wonder why they are deliberately building up perceptions that nothing is happening in India and that the country is burning along ethnic and religious fault-lines. Recurring campus unrests over the last three years are being systematically encouraged as manifestations of this phenomenon.

I doubt whether Gurmehar realises this.