Nationalism vs. Patriotism

An article appeared in Times of India by a certain Mr. Verma on the distinction between Nationalism and Patriotism. Thankfully, unlike other "liberals", the author has not used the term jingoism to denote the Nationalistic fervours. One of course cannot accuse ToI to be either a Nationalistic or a Patriotic Newspaper. It just wants to position itself as a "secular", "liberal" paper and therefore happy to give opportunity to like minded secular and liberals to express their view points, however fallacious they may be.

First, on the point of Nationalism. There is a misguided perception prevalent that supporting the country's rights to defend itself from the inimical interests and protecting its interests by raising a pitch against the arch enemies is "Nationalism". Earlier they used to call it jingoism, now mercifully they have toned down the rhetoric as it finds no takers. The author carefully pins the blame on the present Government to display Nationalism and comes to the conclusion after several paragraphs that Nationalism is quite different from patriotism. According to him one can be patriot without having to become Nationalist. Its like saying that one can become enlightened without practising any of the moral foundations like yama and niyama. True, it can happen, but very rarely one can find a true patriot who is not an ardent Nationalist.

First, what is the difference? Nationalism leads to patriotism, patriotism cannot be obtained without Nationalism. Nationalism is the basic foundation on which the building of patriotism rests. Unless one is Nationalist, one can seldom become a patriot. Our freedom movement is a testimony to the fact. The ardent nationalist leaders who put Nation above everything else, even their self interests, were the true patriots. Therefore the difference is one of degree, not of kind. A Nationalist can become a patriot only when he or she is willing to sacrifice his or her own selfish interests for the interest of the country. He or she simply gets rid of all selfishness, like quest for power, name, fame and fortune and thus struggle for only one aim, the upliftment of the Nation, to free it from the shackles of tyranny, from poverty and other ills plaguing it. There were many Nationalist leaders during freedom movement but few were true patriots. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was a Nationalist and a patriot. So were all the revolutionaries who sacrificed their everything for the sake of the country and gave their lives up on the alter of the freedom movement. So were countless ordinary people who did the same, directly or indirectly by joining the freedom movement. So were the numerous valiant army men who fought against the enemies under stringent conditions, to serve the nation. The leading Congressmen who settled for power post independence were perhaps Nationalists but not truly patriots like Netaji or Surya Sen or Bagha Jatin or Aurobindo or Subramanya Bharati or Bhagat Singh or Hemchandra Ghosh or countless others who gave up their lives willingly for the Nation. But the same for instance cannot be said of the leftist liberals who are so critical of the term Nationalism, the present author included. They are not Nationalists, so by definition they cannot be accused of patriotism. They are driven by blind hatred for the cultural history, the ethos, the values that India stands for - the core essence of Hinduism, of renouncing family's interest for the sake of community, of renouncing community interest for the sake of village, of renouncing village interest for the sake of the state, of renouncing the state's interest for the sake of the nation, and of course, renouncing even the National interest for the sake of the humanity. The European nations, the America stopped at the level of National interest, while India had always stood for humanity over everything else. America destroyed Japan by hurling atom bomb. God knows how many nations Europe had destroyed in the wake of its imperialist aggression for amassing more and more wealth by looting, stealing and plundering other countries. That's why India never attacked any other country and had forgiven its attackers many times. That's the reason why it was invaded and mercilessly and brutally subjugated by the marauders who it had forgiven time and again. And when a section of the people raises its hood to protest against the suppression, the calumny heaped upon it, the unfair treatment in the hands of the so called secular lobbies who clearly finds it more worthwhile to pamper the very fundamentalists and their supporters who stands against the Indic ethos, culture and values, the  leftist liberals find it alarming. Leftists are antithesis of Nationalism and therefore they cannot be in anybody's wildest dream be marked as patriotic. They resort to all means to attack it, to browbeat it and devise every possible ways to do the same. They are supported by a pliant media that has already lost all its credibility and has sold itself to the longest ruling dynasty in the present world and its foreign backers. So the distinction made between Nationalism and Patriotism is just another clever ploy to paint plant seeds of doubt about the bonafide measures adopted to protect the interest of the Nation. Of course the corruption backed by the dynastic politics, the nepotism, the power and money collusion cannot be dubbed as Nationalism. So the author has every right to denounce Nationalism because he and the viewpoints that he support have no respect for Nationalism. Only, that automatically disqualifies him and his brand of politics to become patriots.