Scroll.In has published the following excerpt from ‘Dr. Shashi Tharoor's new book- 'The Battle of Belonging: On Nationalism, Patriotism And What It Means To Be Indian’.
Some scholars have called nationalism a “Janus” concept, two-faced in its capacity to be both good and bad.
Concepts aren't good or bad. Actions may have such predicates and we may say such and such bad action was attributable to such and such concept. But this is merely a manner of speaking. That same concept may have motivated an action of an opposite type.
“There is one [face],” in the words of the French philosopher Etienne Balibar,
Balibar is a cretin. That's his one face.
“which tends to construct a state or a community
concepts don't construct shit. States and Communities are 'constructed' by people who gain by so doing. They may say 'we have such and such concept'. But that concept is essentially contested. It can be realized by any type of action.
and the one which tends to subjugate, to destroy;
Fuck off! If I could subjugate and destroy people just by having a concept then I'd be the Emperor of the World. Even Balibar's Communism did not tend to 'subjugate and destroy' because the cunt was useless.
the one which refers to right and the one which refers to might;
and the one which refers to light and the one which refers to night and the one which refers to bright and the one which refers to Tharoor's retarded shite and so on and so forth
the one which tolerates other nationalisms and may even argue in their defence and include them in a single historical perspective... and the one which radically excludes them in an imperialist and racist perspective.”
I can radically exclude any shite I like but that doesn't prevent me from being excluded from my house coz I can't pay my rent. 'Imperialism' and 'Racism' are merely predicates we attach to those we envy or dislike.
The American legal scholar Lea Brilmayer makes a case for the moral significance of nationalism, arguing that “nationalism, itself, is morally transparent, and that this fact accounts for its ability to coexist equally well with good and evil.”
But this means Nationalism has no moral significance whatsoever.
This “moral transparency”
is meaningless. Something which is invisible is transparent but so is something which does not exist.
is apparent in “The American’s Creed” written by William Tyler Page in 1917, later passed as a resolution by the US House of Representatives on 3 April 1918, that reads:
“I believe in the United States of America, as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.”
Who has ever argued that a citizen's duty is to hate and subvert the Government or the Laws of his country?
There is nothing there that, once applied to one’s own nation, any nationalist anywhere could reasonably object to.
Nonsense! A Nationalist may reject Democracy and oppose having a independent and separate Judiciary.
Personally, I am somewhat sympathetic to the Tagore-Orwell consensus that nationalism essentially lends itself to negative outcomes;
There was no 'consensus' between Tagore and Orwell. The fact is Tagore understood that his people would be ethnically cleansed from East Bengal- where his family owned large estates. Orwell was a confused fellow.
but I must admit the more nuanced view, well expressed by scholars like the American philosopher and historian Hans Kohn, who distinguished between “good” and “evil” nationalism, German nationalism typifying the latter.
Kohn, like most people at that time (1944) was a Racist. He thought 'Western' Nationalism was 'civic' and good while 'Eastern' Nationalism was 'ethnic' and bad. Why is Tharoor quoting a long dead Racist? His India represents 'evil' Nationalism because it was based on getting nice British Sahibs and Memsahibs to pack their bags and go back to Blighty.
The positive view of nationalism is that it is a constructive force,
only if it destroys the fuck out of the armadas of invaders
an ideology that builds a state (the nation-state) and so organises a community of people more efficiently and purposefully,
This is nonsense. A cosmopolitan elite may organize things 'more efficiently and purposefully'- which is how come I do most of my shopping on Ebay and Amazon- whereas Nationalists may be incapable of organizing a piss up in a brewery. However, getting organized increases 'survival value'. Such Nationalisms as have survived have done so on an uncertain fitness landscape. That is why we can't tell, a priori, whether a particular expression of Nationalism- e.g. Brexit- is good or bad.
promoting the cohesion of democratic institutions and values;
Nationalism has no such magical power. 'Cohesion' involves mechanism design promoting 'incentive compatibility'. That's a matter for economists- not blathershites.
the negative view sees it as a malign, chauvinist, hostile, and power-hungry ideology that tends to subjugate and destroy.
But the people who hold these views are worthless blathershites teaching in worthless University departments or else, like Tharoor, are corrupt or incompetent bureaucrats and politicians of a wholly useless type.
The positive view is predicated on the acknowledgement that nationalism has driven many successful independence movements,
in other words, Nationalism has driven some successful Nationalist movements though, of course, it has also driven many unsuccessful movements. There is no big surprise there.
including the Greek and Irish revolutions (both against imperial powers that denied them their nationhood),
The Greeks received help to get out from under the Turk. But, in the political climate of the time, it was not called a revolution. Ireland did not have a revolution. There was a Civil War of great ferocity.
the Zionist movement that created modern Israel,
Is Zionism a Nationalism or is it, au fond, Religious? With hindsight, it was an assertion of a Jewish religious identity independent of orthopraxy. But this is also a feature of other Religions.
and the dissolution of the Soviet Union (which permitted the reassertion of earlier nationalisms long stifled in the collective enterprise of Soviet Communism).
Stalinism had a Nationality doctrine.
The negative view points to the Nazis, the Italian Fascists,
why not Franco's Spain or Salazar's Portugal? The answer is that Hitler and Mussolini lost wars.
and the half-century of nationalist conflict that twice tore the world apart in the first half of the twentieth century. “Nationalist conflict has caused enormous suffering, both directly and indirectly,” Gellner wrote. “Nationalism is not just a phenomenon, it is also a problem.”
This is silly. Imperialism was a big problem- it caused the First World War where the Kaiser tried to score off on this English and Russian cousins. Then came the Bolshevik Revolution which was directly responsible for the rise of Fascism. Why? The police and the army didn't want to beat up the Reds in the streets. So people like Mussolini and Hitler were brought in. The fact is Fascism was superior to Communism. People ran away from the latter to the former where, however, they were seldom welcomed- if they belonged to the wrong Religion.
Of course, a cynical interpretation of such examples is that nationalism is “good” when it succeeds and “bad” when it fails, since history is written by the winners and the losers can be dismissed as rebels, secessionists, or worse.
This is the only proper interpretation. A project is good if it succeeds. It is bad if it fails after spilling blood uselessly.
The verdict on Kurdish nationalism, for instance, is yet to be written, since it has succeeded only partly with the achievement of autonomy but not sovereignty in Iraq, with control of territory but not recognition in Syria, and been effectively suppressed in Iran and Turkey – the countries over whose territories the Kurdish people, and therefore a putative Kurdish nation, would extend.
The verdict on Ocalan has been written. He was a nutter. A similar verdict has been passed on Arafat.
As for myself, I am inclined to associate what some call “good nationalism” with civic nationalism and patriotism, and leave the bald term “nationalism” to what is seen by most as “bad nationalism”.
But 'civic nationalism' requires a well developed Civil Society. This is only possible in advanced, industrialized, countries. However, there too, as the recent COVID crisis has shown, a Dictatorship may handle things better. The USA has 300,000 fatalities. China reports less than 5000. Its economic recovery is underway.
“At its core,” writes the American scholar Amitai Etzioni, “patriotism points to passionate concern for one’s fellow citizens and the community they share, a resolve to love one’s nation despite its defects and to work for its flourishing. This is what I mean by ‘good’ nationalism.”
The guy is a German born Israeli American. He may be passionately loving people all over the place but such love is not patriotism. A misanthrope may be a patriot. A guy who hugs and cuddles everybody he meets may run away if called to fight for his country.
While “good nationalism” and “patriotism” have a lot in common, there are still differences between the two – what we understand by “good nationalism” is really civic nationalism with liberal democracy stirred in,
No. We understand that the Chinese are nationalists. They are patriots. They wanted their country to become rich and strong. That is why they kicked in the head of 'liberal democracy'.
whereas patriotism is largely a positive emotional and sentimental love of homeland.
No. Patriotism says 'dulce et decorum pro patria mori'- it is a sweet and decorous thing to die for one's country. On the other hand, a patriot is welcome to feel deep hatred and disgust for his fellow citizens. We don't care. What matters is whether the guy will show valor on the battle field and kills lots and lots of the enemy.
Speaking for myself, when I refer to my own nationalism,
you convince nobody. You are merely playing a part for material gain.
spurn any non-Indian allegiance,
yet the only Indian author Tharoor mentions is Tagore. But even there he gets Tagore wrong by lumping him together with Orwell.
and proudly wear a tricolour lapel pin every day, I am really subscribing to a hybrid of good nationalism and patriotism
that rests on licking the arse of the Dynasty
that rests on the institutional and constitutional pillars of civic nationalism.
i.e. Rahul's Mummy.
Between patriotism and nationalism, though, I would argue that patriotism is about what is right
Nonsense! A patriot may kill or chase away enemy agents regardless of the Law. Suppose, we lose a war and cede territory to the enemy. A Nationalist ought to evacuate that territory. A patriot may stay and launch a guerilla war.
and nationalism is about might.
No. A Nation may exist because of purely diplomatic considerations. Patriotism requires actually spilling your blood to keep your people on a piece of land. Thus a Nationalist and an irredentist Patriot may be in conflict.
Both involve love of country and a willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice for it, but while the patriot is prepared to die for his homeland, the nationalist is prepared to kill for his state.
The patriot is prepared to die if he doesn't get his blow in first. Patriotism involves killing or chasing away invaders. Nationalism does not necessarily involve any such thing. Raja Ram Mohan Roy & Dwarkanath Tagore could, plausibly, be called Nationalists. They were not Patriots because they petitioned the British parliament to lift restrictions on White immigration to India. This is because they saw the Whites as a bulwark against the Muslims. The Indian National Congress only managed to popularize Nationalism when it compromised with, rather than simply condemned, Patriotism.
Scholars across a vast literature have identified five major elements in nationalism:
There is only one element in Nationalism- viz the notion that a criteria exists according to which people belong or don't belong to a Nation. But these criterial change over time. In medieval European Universities, 'Nation' meant a linguistic group because everybody was Catholic. After the Reformation, the notion of Nation evolved substantially. It was only in commercially advanced enclaves that 'civic nationalism' appeared in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century.
the yearning for national unity (and even uniformity),
but everybody always 'yearns' that coordination problems are solved by such Schelling focal points as appeal to them. Vegetarians want everybody to be vegetarian at least partly because there would be many more places serving that shite.
the requirement of exclusive loyalty,
does not exist in the US or the UK. India doesn't permit dual Citizenship- probably to keep Muslims out.
the striving for national (rather than individual) freedom,
Fuck off! Which American or Britisher has been striving for 'national rather than individual' freedom? None at all.
the aspiration for exclusiveness and distinctiveness,
has nothing to do with patriotism or nationalism. Kicking out the enemy or potential enemy is a different matter. But that enemy may be related to us. But, by converting to Trumpism or whatever they have rendered themselves persona non grata. Let them fuck off back to such redneck trailer parks as are hospitable to their ilk.
and the quest for honour and prestige among nations.
As opposed to the quest for being laughed at and made mock by everybody else.
This last is where the biggest problem lies, for this quest for honour and prestige easily becomes an urge for domination.
But the urge for domination must express itself as a quest for honor and prestige. You can't dominate anybody if they keep pointing at you and sniggering and saying 'look, that cretin just shat his pants!'
When a nation’s dignity requires the defeat of others,
but those others can fuck it up very thoroughly, then it shits its pants and ends up looking very undignified indeed. Ask Saddam.
The fact is, either you can fuck up others or you can't. If you can't, you say 'true dignity consists in turning the other cheek'. If you can, do so from time to time just to send a signal.
when your honour is seen through the need to assert your superiority to others, nationalism can easily degenerate into chauvinism, belligerence, and the rejection of coexistence.
It makes more sense to reverse the arrow of causation. If your country can fuck up others then Chauvinism, belligerence and the rejection of coexistence will be a feature of Nationalism- provided being a bully more than pays for itself. It is only when the other side has an offensive military doctrine which imposes a higher cost than the potential profit that coexistence becomes a correlated equilibrium. But, public signals still matter.
As Jawaharlal Nehru wrote in the American periodical Asia in 1938, as war clouds gathered above Europe:
“Nationalism is in ill odour today in the West
This was nonsense. Only a few drawing room Socialists thought in this way. On the other hand, France's lack of an offensive military doctrine meant that a War was coming which, for Europe, would impose a very much higher cost than any potential gain. But this was good news for India and Indonesia and so forth.
and has become the parent of aggressiveness, intolerance and brutal violence.
Why? Because France didn't have an offensive military doctrine. Also, it was a fact that Fascism was better than Stalinism. That's why Stalin did a deal with Hitler.
All that is reactionary seeks shelter
Churchill was 'reactionary' but he wasn't exactly seeking shelter from blathershites like Nehru
under that name – fascism, imperialism, race bigotry, and the crushing of that free spirit of enquiry which gave the semblance of greatness to Europe in the nineteenth century.
Congress had already crushed 'the free spirit of enquiry' under its 'Il Duce' & 'Fuhrer', Mahatma Gandhi
Culture succumbs before its onslaught and civilisation decays.
No it doesn't. Nationalism gained salience in the Nineteenth Century. Under its rubric, various National 'bildungsburgertums' greatly advanced culture and civilization. Bolshevikism, and the Fascism it gave rise to, was a different kettle of fish. Still, life-chances for many working class people did improve.
Democracy and freedom are its pet aversions, and in its name innocent men and women and children in Spain are bombed to death, and fierce race persecution takes place.
It was the Spanish Republicans who started the atrocities- raping nuns and killing priests. Then Franco brought in 'Moorish' troops and got them to systematically rape or kill everybody in the Districts that came under his control. This is why it took him so long to conquer the country.
Yet it was nationalism that built up the nations of Europe a hundred years ago
This is nonsense. Limited Monarchies as well as transnational Christian Empires 'built up' Europe. The rise of a vernacular bourgeoisie and bildungsburgertum dovetailed with the 'beamtenliberalismus' of the bureaucracy. The type of Nationalism Nehru is speaking off gained salience only in the context of the rise of an industrial proletariat with a Socialist leadership.
and provided the background for that civilisation whose end seems to be drawing near. And it is nationalism which is the driving force today in the countries of the East which suffer under foreign domination and seek freedom. To them it brings unity and vitality and a lifting of the burdens of the spirit which subjection entails.
Afghanistan had got complete independence at about the time Gandhi called off the Non Cooperation Movement. Gandhi chose subjection. To his credit, Nehru had enough patriotism to feel pain at this outcome.
There is virtue in it up to a certain stage –
with hindsight, we can see that Nationalism was virtuous till the fucking BJP displaced Nehru's Dynasty.
till then it is a progressive force adding to human freedom.
by talking incessant bollocks. The fact is, maintaining a freedom has an opportunity cost. The Law may say one thing, but if the money isn't available to enforce it, what prevails is something else altogether.
But even then it is a narrowing creed and a nation seeking freedom, like a person who is sick, can think of little besides its own struggle and its own misery.
Gandhi inflicted this misery on India because a demoralized Indian might be content to become a celibate, khadi spinning, crank for whom a jail cell represented a welcome broadening of horizons.
India has been no exception to this rule and often, in the intensity of her struggle, she has forgotten the world and thought only in terms of herself. But as strength came to her and confidence born of success, she began to look beyond her frontiers...”
Actually, prior to Gandhi's dictatorship, the Indian revolutionaries were fanning out across the globe gaining allies. Consider Amba Prasad Sufi. He was in Iran fighting Dyer while Gandhi was fulfilling his life long mission to shed as many of his clothes as possible.
It is ironic that, in its earliest expressions, nationalism breathed a certain spirit of universalism.
No it isn't. Nationalists sought allies to overthrow Emperors or at least gain a countervailing power over them.
When the French overthrew their king with shouts of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” and proclaimed their Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, they were asserting a slogan and a set of principles that they believed to be valid not only for themselves, the French people, but for all people everywhere.
Why? Because Emperors wanted to come to the aid of their Kingly cousin. In the end, they succeeded. However, thanks to Napoleon's military genius, Germany and Italy had been fundamentally changed. But it isn't the case that the French really wanted to liberate everybody. Napoleon put crowns on the heads of his relatives.
There was a quasi-religious fervour to the enterprise.
There was an actual religion associated with that mischegos.
As the American sociologist Mark Juergensmeyer observes, religion and nationalism both provide an overarching framework of moral order, a carapace that commands ultimate loyalty from those who shelter under it.
This is nonsense. The most orthodox strains of Religion says you may still go to Hell if predestined to do so. Nationalism has no orthopraxy. It does not represent even a partial ordering of preferences. It isn't an overarching framework at all. Communism, however, may be an 'overarching framework' as may some forms of Utilitarianism.
“Nowhere is this common form of loyalty more evident than in the ability of nationalism and religion, alone among all forms of allegiance, to give moral sanction to martyrdom and violence.:”
There have been plenty of Communist martyrs. But then, in Tharoor's own country, there are fans of Amitabh Bacchan or other superstars who kill themselves to prove the strength of their allegiance. Clearly, this American Sociologist is as ignorant as shit.
Llobera attributes the success of nationalism in modernity largely to “the sacred character that the nation has inherited from religion. In its essence the nation is the secularised god of our times.”
Meaningless drivel. Secularized Gods existed before there were Empires or Nations and will continue to exist. This is because, men are mortal. A conception of God can't outlast a saeculum- i.e. about ninety years. All religions have a mechanism to update themselves over this length of time. You are still orthodox if you believe what your grandfather did, though- perhaps imperceptibly- this wasn't the same as his grandfathers believed.
One could say 'Football, in England, or Cricket in India, is a secularized Religion.' But why bother? People will still snigger at you and say ' that guy shits his pants'.
However, for all certitudes and positives associated with nationalism,
by stupid blathershites teaching worthless subjects
side by side there have always been negatives and ambiguities as well.
coz that is the hallmark of a blathershite.
In a report on nationalism in 1939, as the dark clouds of World War II were gathering in the skies above, the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House, London,
which has always been completely useless
referred to the ambiguity in understanding nationalism. Its report observed that the term nationalism “is used in such a sense that Mazzini, Gladstone, and Woodrow Wilson can be described as exponents of nationalism, as well as Herr Hitler”.
Hitler was fulfilling the maximal plan of the German General Staff which, as he revealed in Mein Kampf, involved doing in Europe what Europeans had done in Africa and the Americas- i.e. enslaving or exterminating indigenous populations while erecting castles and palaces for an elite military caste of 'Gauleiters'.
I haven't read Tharoor's book- like everything he writes, it is stupid shite. Obviously, he is saying Congress is 'good' and 'patriotic' while the BJP is 'bad' and 'nationalist'. The problem is that Congress is not good. It is not patriotic. It is corrupt, incompetent, and remains bound up with a dynasty dying nasty. On the other hand, it is anti-national. Thus it can keep a few seats on the fringes of mainstream India. Money may come in from China. Thus the pensions of these senile gerontocrats will be provided for. There will always be some International junket to which they will be invited. In Tharoor's case, if he escapes imprisonment on charges of abetting the suicide of his wife, there will be a few honorary Doctorates from various shite Universities. Who knows? Perhaps Tharoor's amour propre really is impregnable to the verdict of history. Or perhaps he was always a chancer. What inflated his balloon was his own hot air. Still, for a while he had a splendid view.
No comments:
Post a Comment