Nationalism is one of the most important requisites for any individual as it gives a sense of belonging to a person within the vast expanse of existence. It can be seen as a nobler version of the bonding one share within a family. While this is such an elaborate aspect, there are no definite definitions when it comes elaborating this expression. Everyone tries to put up a definition according to their own suitability and understanding which seems fair to the extent that it is an individual right but when it comes of juxtaposing the same ideology over others then the problems begin to arise.
There is a genuine characteristic in humans that they try to defend their own ideas, and when somebody tries to remold that frame then conflicts become non avoidable. Same is the case with nationalism; while some feel that it is utterly important to take out time to show your love for the nation time to time, some feel it unnecessary and flaunt. Both the thought processes are correct when seen through the glasses of the respective bearers and flawed when observed from the other.
The discussion on this topic has emerged out because of the recent compulsive orders from The Supreme Court of India of playing national anthem in movie theaters before movie screenings. While many are rejoicing at this development and are proclaiming it as a needed measure to keep the sanctity of the nation upright, many are calling it a not required and ill-advised decision which goes against the basic principles of liberty.
Let’s try to analyze both these point of views one by one.
The Rashtra-rakshak clan
It involves the people who have the belief that one needs to abide by every rule and regulation made in order to show their reverence to the nation regardless of anything. This is the group that comes all guns blazing when someone does or says something that can insult the national flag, song or any emblem, many a times without considering or even listening to the person in question. They demand apologies, pass judgments and are pretty quick at calling the person in question an Anti-National.
This is the band which is led by leaders who call upon movie bans and ask their followers to do anything and everything to the extent of moral policing to make sure that their own idea of nationalism is propagated and taken forward. They tend to pick up any means from processions to outright violence in order to achieve the objective.
While these seem quite nationalistic in the bird’s eye view but when one actually carefully analyses them then the actual motives usually seem political or personal gains.
The Samaj-seva gang
This is the group of people who see that everybody else’s liberty and rights is theirs to protect. Many a times they do mean well but quite a few times the cross the line of being a social activist and a social vigilante by intervening into the personal spaces of individuals. They often take sides of those who are alleged of crimes against the society on humanitarian grounds and are quite bent towards spreading their ideology of unhindered liberty and freedom.
While they seem to be well versed with idea of freedom of expression and speech, they tend to overstretch the same at times.
Alongside these two, coexists a third faction of people who are so busy in providing for their families and their loved ones that they don’t even care about any of the big stuff. This nameless faction is the largest in numbers but still has the minimum say in the decision making.
This nameless faction doesn’t care about the release of a movie or the abolition of a law but is worried about making sure its sustenance. So are they non-nationalist? The answer is a clear NO. This is the part of population that forms the major portion of the defense forces as well as the trading and scientific community. Their importance and input in the nation’s development is far more that the other two and yet they don’t care about being named.
The final thought is that though it s justified to have a customized approach towards nationalism in a personal context but forcing it on someone is something that should be avoided for peaceful coexistence.