Nationalism Case

It is often difficult to define nationalism and maintain a rational discourse detached from emotive rhetoric. However it is usually defined as “not a sporadic sentiment that suddenly appears, but gradually evolves when a nation’s survival becomes threatened by an external power and thus, in an overreaction, harks back to its heritage through a variety of means.” Thus nationalism is a reaction of people who feel culturally at a disadvantage.

The history of india’s freedom struggle is widely known……..if the country wouldn’t have adopted methods like swadeshi and other nationalist methods then we would still have been slaves to the so called colonial masters. Rabindranath Tagore in his essay ‘nationalism in india’ raises a significant question that is nationalism a panacea for all ills? Doesn’t it possess dangers as well?

Tagore feels that we understand so many things everyday but it takes a considerable reflection as to what we have actually understood. Before denouncing nationalism one must understand as to what nation is. In early times due to geographical limits and lack of communication the sense of unity and concept of nation was confined to a small fraction of land. But gradually one has to come out of narrow limit and develop moral spirit of combination. Nation is not just a piece of land made up of bricks and mortar, but is constituted by its people, their livelihood as well their problems. So even if one wants to fight for one’s ‘NATION’, it can’t be just for a small place marked with boundaries. Rather it has to be for their fellow countrymen. According to Tagore those who could develop a high moral power of love and vision of spiritual unity, will only be the one to carve out a place for them in the coming age while he others who engage themselves in fight and narrow nationalist sentiment will be eliminated. . He said that there would be no use of the freedom if it would be gained by replacing one oppressive power with the other

Tagore , unlike Mahatma Gandhi was against the idea of nationalism. He called nationalism ‘a great menace’, stating, that he was ‘not against one nation in particular, but against the general idea of all nations’. Acc. to him placing excessive, exaggerated and exclusive emphasis on values, leads to a vain and importunate overestimation of ones own nation and thus to a detraction of others’. He stated that nationalism possesses great threats. Nationalism germinates the seed of prejudice among different nations. People become ignorant towards reality and become harsh in their judgements. Nationalism never speaks of hopes and aspirations of an entire community rather it leads to the formation of more natural units of clan, tribe, race and religious groups. Thus instead of fraternity, it creates a new hierarchy and hegemony within its structure, and exposes the fracture between its rhetoric and reality.

Nationalism

...