Recent events at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi, and the political drama that followed has divided Indians into those who identify themselves as nationalists and others who, equally proudly, proclaim themselves anti-national. The debate has pitted those who pretend to champion freedom of expression and dissent against those who will tolerate no act that may be deemed seditious or anti-national. The battle lines having been thus clearly drawn, it is natural for a person to find himself on one side or the other – and any person with even the slightest interest in India and her politics cannot help being drawn into this heated conversation around freedom of expression,  nationalism and the right to dissent.

Before we can even begin to discuss nationalism, it is important to try to understand what constitutes the nation. At the gross, physical level, it is the territory enclosed by a defined boundary and the people who reside in this territory. At an ideological level, it is the political entity that governs the territory and its people. Unlike the land and people which are tangible, the political entity which is the state is intangible. Thus it needs some symbols – like the national flag, the national anthem – to be identified with, and volumes of statutes to draw its definition from. The political entity formalizes the people’s right over the land and its resources, provides them a safe and harmonious environment for pursuing their goals, grants and guarantees them their rights. The symbols which help identify it, and the constitution which defines it, being representative of this entity, are sacred.

Those who seek to break this political entity are posing a threat not only to the government at the top, but also to the rights and lives of the millions who form its base, and thus need to stopped and dealt with by the government through means that are consistent with ideals on which the nation is found. As far as I understand, it is into this category that the students who displayed support for terrorists and raised anti-India slogans fall, and that makes them clearly anti-national.

One of the arguments put forward by the supporters of these students is that their opposition is not to the people, and what they are against is only the present political system. Even if we give them the benefit of doubt, this does not make them any less anti-national than our soldiers are patriotic – because the India that these soldiers give their lives to protect is also the political entity that these anti-nationals seek to destroy. (I don’t know why soldiers have to be pulled into this debate. Perhaps, because they are the epitome of unquestionable nationalism such that other players can be located on the nationalist spectrum based on their positions vis-a-vis that of soldiers. I am not very fond of this logic, but that will be the topic for another post, since none of the points that I seek to bring up in this article are dependent on it).

Another argument raised by this camp is that only some students raised such slogans, while the rest did not. Here I am of the view that only those who raised the anti-national slogans and the ones who organized the gathering, giving them a forum to air their anti-national views are to be punished by the law. Thus the action by the government against students who seek to vitiate India’s political atmosphere and incite anti-national sentiments is justified. The students thus charged also have the protection of the law and can challenge this legally, or will be acquitted if and when the government fails to prove the charges against them.

That said, these students are  not the only ones who have gone overboard in expressing their views, and have acted in a way that is legally questionable and condemnable. The goons who beat up the accused in the court of law in the name of nationalism are equally guilty of subverting law and order of the country, and are no less anti-national, regardless of how they consider themselves. I find it hard to assume that they were motivated by the love for India, and am inclined to think that they had some ulterior motive.  Nevertheless, the government has a responsibility to ensure that they are brought to justice.

Equally irresponsible and guilty are others who, in order to score political points against the present government, went to the extent of tagging themselves as anti-national and encouraged others to do the same. True to their claim, they indeed are anti-national, because through their actions they have sought to gain temporary political mileage (or viewership/readership in case of journalists and media houses) at the expense of the nation and the spirit of nationalism that binds it together. Though they may not be culpable under law, the people of India will do good to show them their place by democratically rejecting them along with their devious schemes.

I trust that the majority of Indians are against these three groups of anti-nationals responsible for creating the ugly scenes that have monopolized media coverage in the last few days. However, some of these elements (mostly from the third category) are making an effort to confuse this majority by portraying these events as  being an assault on the right to freedom and a crackdown by the government on its political opponents and dissenters. This claim would have been laughable if it were not for the fear and doubt it is giving rise to. Political opponents of the ruling coalition have not just been criticizing the government or its policies, but incessantly reviling it ever since it came to power. If the government was indeed serious about rooting out dissent, we wouldn’t have been hearing all this malicious propaganda by self-certified anti-nationalists because they would have long been silenced.

Opposing specific actions of the government or the judiciary is not anti-national, even when technically it can amount to sedition (because sedition, by definition, is the “incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government” – from dictionary.com). In this case, the slogans in question were not against any specific policy or decision of the government, but directed against the sovereignty and integrity of India, which parties across political alignment should have come together to denounce and demand action against. The question of whether such acts warrant legal action can be answered only in the context of what the constitution and relevant laws say on the subject. If, as many claim, the laws are archaic and not applicable any more, then that is to be a separate debate. If over a dozen governments before the previous ones did not think it necessary to revoke the law, then the blame cannot be placed solely on the present government for invoking the law. If the party which, when in power, executed Afzal Guru can now endorse meetings to protest his “killing”, it is not surprising when they act as if the sedition law has been made by the  present government.

For any political observer who has followed the tactics used by the united opposition to hinder this government from doing their job, the motive for creating this controversy and blowing it out of proportion is not hard to see. With the budget session of the parliament set to begin, the opposition needs some new excuse to create a ruckus and prevent the passage of important bills that can set the nation back on a course of growth. With the debate raging on, the opposition which is focused only on creating hurdles in the path of the government, even if it means derailing the nation’s progress, is making a wholehearted effort to show us the true meaning of the word anti-national.

Related reading:

1. A general discussion on the sentiment of nationalism/patriotism: How Noble is your Patriotism?