Indian Nationalism

The question, “What constitutes Indian nationalism?” is the subject of our discussion today. It is, without doubt, a matter of great national significance. Resolving this question is crucial to the country’s progress and development. Ideally, this issue should have been conclusively settled in 1947, at the time of independence. Yet, we find that the debate continues to this day—clearly showing that, more than half a century later, no universally accepted answer has been reached.

In my view, the primary reason for this prolonged uncertainty is the failure to distinguish between two distinct domains—that which is national (collective) and that which is individual (personal). In any society, certain matters belong to the national sphere, where uniformity is essential, while others lie in the private sphere, where diversity is both natural and necessary.

If national matters are left to individual preference, it may lead to national fragmentation. Conversely, if individual matters are subjected to national enforcement, society can descend into disorder.

Much of the confusion stems from overzealous individuals from various groups who have failed to maintain this distinction. The result: some have tried to treat national matters as personal, while others have insisted on turning personal matters into national issues. Such unnatural and unrealistic efforts have done nothing but give rise to social discord.

Take, for example, when some Muslims express joy over Pakistan’s sports victories, citing emotional ties due to shared religion. However, this reflects a misapplication of private sentiment to national concerns.

India is our homeland. Whenever India competes with another country—whether on the battlefield or the cricket field—our emotional alignment must naturally be with our own nation. In such matters, individual deviation is not acceptable. Just as it is wrong to make what is private into something public, it is equally wrong to turn what is public into something private.

The simplest and most natural way to understand this distinction is by looking at it through the lens of a family, which is the foundational unit of any nation. A nation, after all, is a collection of families. Now consider how this principle operates at the family level: there are always some matters of common interest, on which all family members hold a shared opinion, and other matters where personal preferences naturally differ.

For instance, a family’s economic decisions—such as income, expenses, and budgeting—require consensus and cooperation. If every member followed a separate financial strategy, the very survival of the family unit could
be at risk.

In contrast, when it comes to individual preferences, each case is different. For instance, one person may enjoy a particular type of food, while another prefers something else. Some choose Western clothing, others Eastern. One might be drawn to literature, another to science. Some are deeply religious, others more liberal in their beliefs. One may favor furniture in a certain color, while another likes a different shade, and so on.

This dual principle—uniformity in shared concerns and freedom in personal matters—governs all families, whether Hindu, Muslim, or of any other background. It is a universal principle of human nature, and it operates everywhere in the world.

In November 1991, I had the opportunity to attend a seminar on national integration in Solapur, Maharashtra. On that occasion, the local MLA, Shri Tulsidas Jadhav, delivered a memorable speech. He said:

“In my own home, I saw that my father was a non-vegetarian, while my mother was a strict vegetarian. Yet, there was never any conflict between them. For years, I observed that my mother would wake up each morning, first prepare meat for my father, and place it on the dining table. Only afterwards would she bathe and then cook a vegetarian meal for herself.

She followed this routine until the end of her life. Despite such a major difference in food habits, they never argued over it. They lived together with mutual respect and affection throughout their lives.”

This anecdote illustrates a broader truth about every family: some matters are shared, while others are personal. Shared matters are those that affect all members equally—such as family reputation, livelihood, advancement, and safety. In these areas, there is naturally a common understanding among family members.

In contrast, there are personal matters—such as food preferences, clothing styles, leisure activities, and habits—where everyone prefers their own choice. The natural principle of life is that in shared matters, unity must be maintained, while in individual matters, each person should enjoy personal freedom.

The key to a successful society lies in striking the proper balance between unity and diversity.

Just as these principles apply at the family level, they extend—on a larger scale—nationwide. A nation, too, consists of both collective national interests and individual interests. When these two are clearly distinguished and each is respected in its own domain, the nation functions smoothly. But when this distinction is blurred, and ideological pressure is applied to merge both domains, the issue no longer remains a manageable social concern—it becomes a source of prolonged national conflict.

A family is based on kinship, while a nation is built upon a shared homeland. The basic principle of nationhood is that all individuals living within a common geographical boundary belong to the same nation. In India, for example, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, and Parsis—all are members of one nation. Whether we call it Hindustani, Indian, or Bharatiya, the idea remains the same.

Within the human collective that constitutes Indian nationalism, there is one common element, alongside certain aspects that are individual in nature. Matters related to India’s unity or its material well-being—such as political integrity, territorial sovereignty, or economic progress—are shared concerns. On these issues, every citizen, regardless of religion or background, must adopt a unified national perspective.

For example:

• Kashmir is not a “Muslim issue” for a Muslim; it is an Indian issue.
• Punjab is not a “Sikh issue” for a Sikh; it is an Indian issue.
• Assam is not a “Christian issue” for a Christian; it is likewise an Indian issue.

In all matters tied to the nation’s collective political, economic, or geographic interests, there can be no separation in thought or loyalty across individuals or communities.

Beyond this domestic sphere, many areas are governed by individual preferences, such as religion, diet, dress, language, lifestyle, and marriage customs. In these domains, each person should have the freedom to act according to their beliefs and personal choices. This standard is now universally accepted by developed nations.

The only reasonable limit to this individual freedom is that it must not infringe upon the freedom of others. As one American citizen aptly told a fellow countryman—after being struck on the nose by someone who misused the idea of “freedom”:

“Your freedom ends where my nose begins.”

To summarize: Every person living in the land between the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean—as defined in our Constitution as “India”—is an Indian. All such individuals form one nation. It is essential that everyone adopt a shared national outlook and live together with mutual respect and cooperation.

However, within this national collective, individual ways of life cannot be uniform—nor are they, in fact, uniform anywhere in the world. In the national sphere, unity of thought is a necessity. But in the personal sphere, the same human nature that demands unity in one area also demands diversity in the other.

Even four brothers born to the same parents may share a common outlook in matters concerning the family’s collective interest, but their personal temperaments, tastes, and lifestyles will often differ.

From this, we understand that what we call Indian nationhood consists of two distinct spheres:

• In one, uniformity is essential, and division cannot be tolerated.
• In the other, diversity is natural, and success lies in mutual tolerance.

In the first sphere, we live by the spirit of:

“I became you, and you became me”—Man tu shudam, tu man shudi

In the second, we follow the principle:

“Let us agree to disagree.”

A truly successful Indian nationalism can only be built when these two spheres are clearly understood and honoured. If separatism in the national domain deserves to be called treason, then in the personal domain, the opposite attitude applies. As Walt Whitman eloquently put it:

“I am large enough to contain all these contradictions.” (Al-Risala, February 1995)