Shashi Tharoor’s views on India today and the idea of nationalism

Sandeep Sinha

The quest for identity comes back to haunt us at some point of time or the other. Occupational mobility, industrialisation, urbanisation, along with globalisation, created multitudes that revelled in the anonymity of a life where only work credentials was all that mattered.

But the search for origins persists, to know who we actually are — ethnically and linguistically, for it helps shape our worldview. It is not for nothing that dignitaries from Mauritius have come all the way to India and to Bihar in search of their roots. The jubilation over Kamala Harris’ victory in the US elections has been witnessed in Tamil Nadu also.

In the book, Shashi Tharoor, diplomat, scholar and now a politician, gives an exposition of his views. The BJP government, he says, seeks to promote ethnic nationalism and entrench its conception of majoritarian nationalism. Tharoor’s observations have been made in the time of CAA and NRC, but it is not just about religious denomination. It is also a sign of a society in retreat where homogeneity is sought, its inherent contradictions notwithstanding.

According to Tharoor, the battle today is between two opposing ideas of India — ethno-religious nationalism versus civic nationalism. The Constitution is under siege, institutions are being undermined and the concepts of pluralism, secularism and inclusive nationhood are under threat, he says, while attempting to establish what it means to be a nationalistic Indian in the 21st century.

In the book, there are numerous examples of the conflicts that assail our thoughts. Born in Britain, the author was eligible for a British passport but preferred to retain his Indian passport, paying huge visa fee instead to enter that country. The dichotomy of getting integrated in a society that is not naturally one’s own is illustrated with interesting examples like the liberal Pakistani diplomat Ansar Bhai, who identified himself more with the pre-Partition India but shot his wife and died himself while living in Switzerland, unable to come to terms with the conflicts of his nationality and origin. It was not that nationalism killed him, but the question of his nationality exercised his complex mind daily. Perhaps this is what happens when borderlines are drawn through people’s hearts and minds. Then there is the Sri Lankan diplomat with Australian citizenship, who despite being politically correct, goes on to cheer the Islanders in the cricket match against the Kangaroos.

It is difficult to explain nativism in one who has spent a lifetime acquiring and embodying a cosmopolitan sensibility, so unfashionable in this world of growing hyper nationalism. The irony of the situation is best described by former British Prime Minister Theresa May, who downplayed the ‘anywheres’ and ‘flexibles’ saying, “Today, too many people in positions of power behave as if they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass on the street… but if you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are nowhere. You don’t understand what the word ‘citizenship’ means.”