Nationalism- a modern sentiment, is often confused with patriotism. Or it would be better to say that patriots usually cross the thin line between them. While in reality, it’s closer to jingoism due to its tendency to be exclusive, than it is to patriotism. Patriotism is inclusive and receptive to criticism of the state’s fascist laws while nationalism demands unconditional love and support for the land. In its roots nationalism was seen as one’s love for its homeland but since the emergence of nation-states, it has taken a nasty turn.
In recent times the world has seen a surge in exclusive nationalism, which used to be often invoked to unite everyone under one common identity. In multi-ethnic countries, whatever binds people to the sense of belonging and pride often has seeds of divisiveness, intolerance; violence — manifested in assaults on minorities.
Nenad Miščević, in his book “Nationalism and Beyond,” critically examines the impact of nationalism on minorities, especially when state-sanctioned violence against them gets ignored due to nationalistic stance and their voice is curbed under the guise of patriotism. Miščević describes this kind of nationalism as “invidious nationalism” that demands unconditional love for one’s homeland. Invidious nationalism also becomes a form of radicalism. It creates an “us vs them” kind of situation and it often turns violent towards the minorities who demand the right to self-determination.
This narrative leads to the exclusion of minorities on a systematic level and is often deliberate. Religion and ethnicity are the major tools used to propagate this rhetoric. And in the process, religious and ethnic minorities are almost always at risk of violence and oppression. Since these groups are often labeled as perfidious and collaborators. Nationalism, in its exclusionary form, harms and divides rather than protects and unites the very people it claims to.
In many nations minorities and refugees have been standardized as “the radicals and uncivilized” and “the other”, also particularly the migrants were demonized for a long time to be victims. This othering is more than social, it runs deep into the realm of politics. Amid the fervor of nationalist zeal, governments often revert to retrogressive laws that strip certain groups of their rights, effectively relegating them to second-class citizenship. The effect is equally ignominious: Minority communities are vilified, attacked, and killed. But, they are often swept under the rug and trivialized when reports conflict with this nation’s portrayal to the world.
The purpose of the silence surrounding violence against minorities is explained by a careful strategy. States that identify themselves as fighting collectively for unity and therefore strength, cannot afford to say openly: Yes we are a united nation but those among us whose mother tongue is different or who keep their facial hair in the way of fashion other than our own…come not near me with your Torah, Quranic scripture.
How nationalism contributes to violence and oppression against minorities can be observed through various present conflicts in the world. One of the most prominent and highlighted ongoing forms of invidious nationalism is the Hindutva ideology in India. This is a very note-worthy case of religious nationalism. Hindu nationalists are seen demolishing the mosques, homes, and businesses of Muslims while raising slogans of “Jai Shree Ram” and demanding to make India a Hindu state. This has led to an alarming level of violence and marginalization of minorities, particularly Muslims.
It is to be noted that this kind of violence is most of the time politically motivated and state-backed, hence all the national institutions play a role in its propagation. Media plays an undeniably paramount role in the dissemination of nationalistic ideas. Recently, Kashmir Files became a box-office hit in India. The film was a propaganda cesspool that contributed to the villainization of Kashmiri Muslims and justified the ongoing suppression.
On the other hand, reactive nationalism- a slightly acceptable form of nationalism, is often used as a defense mechanism by the minority group. Reactive Nationalism is usually justified since it advocates the right to self-determination of the oppressed minority group and frequently supports the idea of secession as self-defense. This was seen in practicality during the 1971 war between Pakistan and India that led to the creation of an independent state of Bangladesh. It would be fair to say that it was an “invidious nationalism” vs “reactive nationalism” since Bangalis feared a threat against their cultural values due to the imposition of Urdu as the official language.
Another such case can be witnessed in the Balochistan region. Baloch- an ethnic minority in Pakistan’s largest province have been protesting for decades against the grave injustices done by the Pakistani government. Their voices are often silenced and the protesters are labeled as rebels and even collaborators of the Indian state.
You will often find the nationalists accusing the people of creating a bad image of the country whenever they demand justice for the victim of the state’s wrath. In short invidious nationalism demands that any criticism must not be allowed and the evils must be ignored in order to retain a good image globally.
The invidious nationalism does not only take civilians as its victims but migrants too. Syrian migrants in Turkey recently saw an unprecedented amount of hate due to the resurgence of racism. Innocent migrants were killed and were forced to evacuate. Anti-Syrian protestors were heard chanting “Turkiye belongs to Turks” and calling for the evacuation of refugees.
This same motto is often heard around the globe at nationalist rallies and protests, usually violent and racist. Recently, it was the United Kingdom. A country known for its colonial injustices and oppressive policies is now demanding for itself to be for its civilians only, the irony. The protests erupted after an unfortunate incident in Leeds that caused the death of a teenager. And again an ethnic/religious minority was scapegoated for it. Muslims and people of color were at the forefront of receiving hatred and were the victims of heinous racist crimes. Their shops were, burned down mosques were put on fire, and their community members were killed.
While nationalism can foster a sense of unity and cultural pride, its exclusionary form can lead to violence, oppression, and division. While it is the moral duty of individuals to abandon such regressive ideas and practices, the state must be held accountable for propagating and backing the divisive policies since a true sense of unity is inclusive, embracive of diversity, and protective of rights of all citizens irrespective of their ethnic, cultural or religious backgrounds.
The Author, Mehreen Khan is a social sciences researcher, human rights advocate, and climate activist.
Add a Comment