Who is a True Nationalist in yours concern ? Defined by the dictionary: “Devotion to the interest and culture of particular nation.”
To extend: “Promoting interest of one country over others.”
To commemorate the day of independence is to keep the values of crusades alive, it’s pretty simple to understand like any other day of remembrance to regenerate the thoughts and hold them to realize the worth of the entities earned by them. Well this is all on a technical foreground, to describe. But here we would rather go to the depth for discernment of the nation, its formation and what a nationalist means from more rational prospect than just the cultural or territorial domains.
To understand the idea of a nation and then a nationalist we have to row back a bit to that time of 1850s to 1950s, and thence without going in details have to realize what were the major factors which led to independence and where the nationalism can be found?
To precisely summarize the factors; they were the religious value violation at the very first in 1857, and then voice raised against mass oppression which reflects human rights oppression, later there was the urge for a nation as earlier they had and most importantly there was an uncalled united emotional tie-up among the people having the impulse of free nation for better living standards. And that one reason if would have been absent for any reason, the independence would just have been in dreams. Hence, if we look closely at the underlined statement there is a huge hidden similarity between the underlined statement and the definition of the nationalist.
After this, India as a free geographical state dealt with even more serious issue of religious differences leading to partition, the reasons for which were somewhere the mistakes by the active leaders of India then and largely by the diplomatic political strategies of British Government. However, the solution in the name of partition came up front and declared duly. But after that the major issue of forming a nation was in front of the leaders of India. Where many European social ideologues discorded with the idea of India as a nation because of its strict and deeply woven diversification, few in India believed that it can be achieved again with the true ideology of nationalism. But because the freedom was already achieved hence the idea of freedom can no further be used strongly to unite the masses. And from there we got the famous slogan of “Unity in diversity” as this became the call for forming a nation, surprisingly this view worked well as it was spread in minds of millions that now as they have earned the freedom we have to look up to the mistakes made in past and realize that after attaining the defined geographical domain, the cultural cause for a nation like India should be the unified culture of diversified communes.
However, the sudden recent outrage in different parts of the country has led to think over the issue of nationalism. And as per all the theories and historical incidents what can be clearly concluded is that if a particular religion or community will be put forth in a nation like India then undoubtedly the future seems disordered and tattered apart. Lately, in the name of liberalism many groups have come forth and raised their voice against India which at first sounds completely unacceptable but to understand this we have to define the implications from the outrage. India as a nation and India as a state must be made direct to the citizens and any activity of outrage, if is against the idea of India as a nation, must be objurgated strictly. Lastly for the intellectuals who still are confused with the idea of India as a nation, it comprises of its territorial boundary and its culture of Unity in the most diversified backgrounds. And those who don’t comply with this ideology are already anti-national. See, following liberalism is entirely well and needed for an ever developing state but the distinction between the state and nation should be made very evidently. Because if this distinction will not be made and the chaos will be carried on for further unending debates, it will certainly lead nowhere as the foundation for discussions was not clear at first. So it’s pretty simple actually, you have the government body and the nation which is defined by its geographical boundaries and its eccentric culture and any attempt to disregard the latter would never be treated positively, it should never be indeed.