In reveries of making a nation, why is the national forgotten?

No other place offers the challenges and opportunities to be an Indian in its variety of colors in the
political sphere as does Jammu Kashmir. Traced from its history of syncretism the state has
allowed people, affiliated to different faiths not only complement each other’s individuality but
also amalgamate into a composite culture of Kashmiriyat. The concept of Kashmiriyat facilitates
a social intercourse at various political, cultural and religious levels, symbolizing a positive
intersection between several individualities. In short, Kashmiriyat rationalizes the jumble of social
peculiarities into a collective ‘Kashmiri identity’ which is plural in nature and mystic in practice.
This traditional affinity towards oneness has given birth to a sacred bond among the indigenous
people, while in the context of its wider history, accidents of communality remain mere aberrations
or footnotes. Even at the time of independence when the sub-continent was burning on the pyre of
communal violence, Kashmir remained peaceful and showed venerable audacity. Exemplified by
local Muslims motivating about twenty two tongawallas to ride from Srinagar to Jammu carrying
Hindu Refugees who had arrived from Muzaffarabad – Ironically only one tongawallah returned
while rest of them were lost to a massacre in Nagrota near Jammu.

In reveries of making a nation, why is the national forgotten?

Democracy is what India inherited in the aftermath of struggle for Independence and has given it
strength to hold together this subcontinent of diverse figures as one nation. But how long shall the
adhesive of democracy prevail? Why this has come to my mind is because what from a birds eye
view appears to be a spectacle of diversity that eats, prays and even loves in a vogue called India
is actually on the verge of a homebound mutiny.

The point is not to criticize the nation rather accentuate on the making of a nation. How can a
nation emerge that is based on the evacuation of people? After all, we need to define, what is India?
Is it the people, or a map or a culture, or a religion or a history? It is high time to engross ourselves
in a debate on tolerance versus intolerance.

Let me put forward my emphasis on the topic.

The idea of an Indian nation, at least in a modern sense, emerged in the 19th century as the
dissemination of the ideas of nation and nationalism from Europe took place. The Indian
nationalists ensured that the imagination or the political consciousness they created in the minds
of the people encompassed the entire territory of the landmass that was known as India. The project
failed at places as exemplified by the creation of Pakistan and the various aforementioned
secessionist movements.

A nation has to depend on justice and equality to all its inhabitants. In fact the soul of nationalism
lies in deeds, not in words. Increasing in the last years or so nationalism has emerged as a paranoid
art emerging from vigilantism of patriotic and chauvinist groups who tend to determine
nationalism with the framework of certain dimensions. Nationalism in my estimate would be a
bridge not a gulf that is holistic in nature, encompassing all the cultures and identities present in
the nation.

In our context of massive diversity which is not only confined to faith or culture but to the extent
of language, geography, food, appearance etc. pose a great challenge in retaining a popular culture
of Indian-ness that is accommodative as well as tolerant. The aim is to further reify this vision and
subsume within it those contradictions and mutinies which challenge it. This process shouldn’t
involve a show of force but rather a conciliatory approach that hits at the very legitimacy and
foundations of these mutinies, an approach that makes them redundant and removes the very
symbols and images that find resonance among the masses that partake in such mutinies or are a
victim of the systemic ones. This suggestion may come across as an abstract, idealized, long-term
solution to a problem that exists right now, needs urgent redressal, and is slowly chipping away at
the very idea of India. However, this is probably the only solution as others are just mere attempts
to cut-off the head of the hydra which remerges again, attempts which don’t cure the pathological
malaise that exists but simply hide or control it. As an example, the secular fabric of India can’t
rest on a precarious balance that may get disrupted by a politician’s rhetoric or some unfortunate
single incident. It should rest on a much deeper understanding of the ethos which underpins India’s
democracy. This understanding should be internalized by most Indians and a top-down, state-led
effort is probably central to creating such a collective understanding.

What makes an Indian?

An Indian can’t be invented out of a person, dressed in a certain fashion, swearing allegiance to a
map and diehard in sensibility. An Indian is to be discovered over a period of time, one who is an
epitome of secularity and social justice within the framework of a federal nation. It is my
conviction to assess the plausibility of an Indian on his bent towards secularity. Peace can’t
herald on a society that is integrated on a culture of force which itself is transient in nature. The
ides can be beautifully summed up in the words of Ernest Renan that “A nation’s existence is a
daily plebiscite, just as an individual’s existence is a perpetual affirmation of life.

At the moment India is passing through a critical examination of its secular socialist values. This
is a time when one finds a predominant rise in cases of mob lynching in the name of cow
protection. One could sense religious alienation by the changing nomenclature of places, roads,
buildings etc. into Hindu names. The once colorful India of distinct dimensions is heading
towards a vibrant Saffron that has no place for people like Mohammad Akhlaq who aspired to
prosper in a digital India or Junaid Khan who was returning home after Eid shopping in Delhi.
Does nationalism demand a specific criteria among people to be less Indian or more? Do
minorities have least credibility for their safety and prosperity in India? Does India only belong
to a Hindu majority?