"We are all obliged to 'be' identifiable in today's world, and one of the things that you need to 'have' in order to 'be' someone is a nationality. So rather than arguing against nationality and identity, I would rather argue for an idea of that is capacious and inclusive. Since you can't help that people see you through the prism of your nationality, wouldn't you rather it was a nationality that embraced diversity and opened you to endless possibilities?" he asks.

Edited excerpts from the interview:

Poll

Who will win the Punjab Elections?

BJP 32.86%

AAP 41.43%

INC 25.71%

Submit

View All In Poll

Quite early on in the book, you mention Israeli writer Yuval Noah Harari, who sees nationalism as one of those great "fictions" of human creation that help societies integrate large numbers of people. Do you agree with him, and if so, have we been taking this fiction far too seriously?

It goes back to the idea of the nation as an "imagined community"—and anything you can imagine is, of course, a sort of fiction. However, this would overlook the very real effects that the idea of the nation has on our lives, and the very tangible fervour that nationalism arouses in so many people. You're right about "taking nationalism too seriously"-by which I assume, you mean fighting and killing in its name—has led to dire consequences, but that's precisely why we can't ignore it, the way we can ignore other kinds of fiction!

You make a clear distinction between patriotism and nationalism. Would you say the patriotism that won us our Independence, no longer exists?

I don't think that that spirit of patriotism has evaporated entirely. The sentiments that inspired the long struggle for independence were rooted in India's time-honoured civilizational traditions of inclusivity, social justice, religious tolerance, and the desire to forge a society that allowed individuals to flourish without barriers thrown up from birth. There are plenty of Indians still fighting to uphold these values, but unfortunately the dominant narrative has become one of a "patriotism" that thrives on exclusionary, aggressive, sectarian nationalism. We must continue to fight against this idea of ethno-religious nationalism, and prove that love and inclusivity remain at the heart of what it means to be a patriot.

In the book, you discuss ethnic nationalism and how different it is from civic nationalism, which is guaranteed to us in our Constitution.

Civic nationalism is the nationalist sentiment that derives from the consent of citizens to participate in a free and democratic society. It is based around the core tenets of representative democracy, freedom of expression, constitutionalism, and liberal democratic institutions. Crucially, it emerges from a voluntary participation in civic society. Ethnic nationalism, on the other hand, ties together people of a common ancestry or hereditary descent. It draws on cultural, linguistic and religious nationalism, making it a complicated, and sometimes dangerous ideology in multi-ethnic states. In India, it is civic nationalism that is guaranteed by our proudly secular Constitution, which outlines the central position of representative democracy and liberal institutions in Indian society. I argue in my book that it's crucial that this brand of nationalism is promoted and protected above all others.

Hindutva, you explain, is a product of ethnic nationalism—its definition having evolved first under Veer Savarkar. Do you think Gandhi's Hinduism hasn't been able to hold against Hindutva?

I don't agree that Gandhi's Hinduism hasn't "held" against Hindutva—as I describe in the book, the battle between the two is still ongoing. It was the Gandhian, Nehruvian, and Ambedkarite principles of tolerance (or more accurately, acceptance of difference) and secularism that made it into the Constitution that governs us, even today. Hindutva, unlike the spiritual and welcoming strain of Hinduism that Gandhi promoted, is a purely political ideology that appropriates Hinduism to bigoted ends. The current political dominance of these ideas does not mean that Gandhian Hinduism is extinct—far from it. Do keep in mind that Hindutva ideology has held very little sway in mainstream politics for most of India's three-quarters of a century of independence. It is enjoying a heyday now, but the civic nationalism entrenched in our Constitution still has strong roots. This period of ascendant communalism has been a short one, and one that I am confident will end soon.

One of the flaws of ethno-nationalism, you write, "is its dependence on the projection of a strong leader". Could you explain why this is problematic for a democracy?

The key strength of a democracy is that its institutions and norms allow it to prosper through upheavals in politics and popular movements. Ethno-nationalist strongmen leaders tend to build an entire movement around them, and when in power, the movement's strength depends entirely on them. If the leader is no longer at the helm, the movement risks crumbling quickly. This is untenable for a democracy like ours. A so-called "strong leader" in the ethno-nationalist mould will want to project his image by attacking minorities and chest-thumping, by putting power over performance and by ensuring his personal stay at the pinnacle, rather than solving the practical issues that society faces. This is no model for a democracy's long-term welfare.

Today, "anti-national" represents different ideas—it's hard to point out what makes one so. How does it defeat the idea of belonging?

This ludicrous phrase seeks to delegitimise any disagreement with the government as being against the nation, and undermines the idea of belonging to an inclusive, open and democratic country. To call people "anti-national" is to arrogate to the government a monopoly over the idea of the nation, and is an absolutist rejection of any sort of dissent. Criticising our elected leaders or offering alternative paths forward for the country is not unpatriotic, nor anti-national: on the contrary, for a patriot it is one's duty to speak up when one observes injustice, for that is the only way that a country's social ills can be rectified. Belonging to a country carries with it the moral obligation to try to better the lives of your fellow citizens, and declaring that there is only one, "correct" way of viewing your country goes against the spirit of this responsibility entirely. As someone wisely said, patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. Disagreeing when the government goes wrong is not only not anti-national, it is actually the highest form of patriotism.

Keep scrolling to read more news

Catch up on all the latest Mumbai news, crime news, current affairs, and a complete guide from food to things to do and events across Mumbai. Also download the new mid-day Android and iOS apps to get latest updates.

Mid-Day is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@middayinfomedialtd) and stay updated with the latest news