Understanding the Primitive State and Contradictory Narratives of India | Ajay Kumar Mishra

Abstract

Recognizing and accommodating contradictory narratives within Indian Nationhood is crucial for fostering unity and progress. This essay explores the discourse on anti-nationalism in India through the lens of conflicting narratives. It scrutinizes the state’s prominence against the backdrop of state-individual dichotomies. The analysis of the government’s monopolization over the state seeks to unravel the labelling of pro-regime as national and anti-regime as anti-national. It highlights the role of dedicated institutions in promoting the prevailing ethnic identity within the nation-state. Drawing on the prudent counsel of James Stuart Mill, the essay suggests that the nation-state must reform to integrate those labelled as anti-nationals, as this should not be considered a disgrace in a democratic republic based on critical thought and reasoning. Engaging in open dialogue across internal and external domains can reduce the narrow-mindedness often linked to the concept of the nation-state.

Key Words: Narrative, Primitive State, Nationhood, Sovereignty

Introduction

The Delhi High Court’s remark, ’If you don’t like India, please don’t work in India,’ [1] reflects the involvement of democratic institutions in promoting a unified concept of nationhood. It indicates a judiciary dedicated to fostering Indian nationhood. Furthermore, the Indian government’s removal of the ban on government employees’ participation in Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) activities, while maintaining the ban on Jamaat-e-Islami, suggests shaping a bureaucracy committed to a specific religious and cultural ideology. Therefore, a dedicated judiciary and bureaucracy serve as more effective instruments in shaping Indian nationalism along a predetermined path.

The development of committed institutions fosters a uniform national consciousness that overlooks contradictions. This leads to the question of whether one must appreciate India to be considered Indian. I may have my likes and dislikes about India, criticizing it for increasing inequality, unemployment, suppression of dissent, mob lynching, and cow vigilantism, among other issues. My critical consciousness lies in critiquing the government and the state’s operations. It challenges the government’s dominance over the state’s other elements, particularly its citizens. Does this make me any less Indian, or should the Indian state evolve to proactively and pre-emptively embrace these differences? Is it permissible for the state, with the government’s majoritarian power, to stifle individual dissent? Does the state have the authority to undermine my humanitarian subjectivity when I criticize attacks on minorities? These pressing questions prompt us to reflect on the state’s efforts to shape a committed individual towards a specific Hindu national identity.

India: A Land of Narratives

Modern history begins when more and more people emerge into social and political consciousness, becoming aware of their respective groups as historical entities having a past and a future. [2] It was more of a quest, a discovery of the unknown past, to reveal the truths about who we are and why we are the way we are, in the present. When asked about the identity of an Indian within India, one might be perplexed by the multitude of identities an individual can possess. A person may define their identity based on caste, class, religion, language, or culture. Each identity possesses the capacity to shape narratives of distinction. The diverse social, cultural, political, and economic perspectives recount history in varied ways. As a result, India has emerged as a nation of contrasting narratives. These contradictions have contributed to the endurance of the Indian state [3].

State-mediated suppression of dissent and opposition was notably condemned during the 1975 emergency. In the past decade, state-supported suppression has been vigorously enforced. This has instilled a psychosis of fear among those suppressed. Dominant state-supported narratives seek to control the personal lives of citizens, often relegating them to a secondary status. These narratives might enforce dress codes, dietary choices, and personal laws to promote uniformity, sometimes undermining unity. Moreover, they can dominate public spaces and relegate marginalized groups, such as Muslims [4] and Dalits [5], to underrepresentation. It also allows numerically minor dominant forces to seize control of the popular narrative defining the nation and its nationhood.

The ongoing interaction between individuals and the nation-state fosters citizenship in individuals and cultivates pro-activeness and responsiveness within the state. The transformation from an individual to a citizen involves engagement with the state. However, inadequate representation of larger marginalized sections results in an unrepresentative nation-state in India. The dominant voice can easily label them as anti-national, as Indian democracy is vulnerable to the influence of a majoritarian voice. Therefore, the classification of nationalists and anti-nationalists hinges on who controls the political governance of the nation-state. This raises the question of whether an anti-national can exist within the larger framework of the nation-state, challenging its tolerance and resilience.

Anti-Nationals in Nationalist Discourse: Understanding the Opposition

While my viewpoints may be perceived as anti-national within the context of India, I firmly uphold the right to express my opinions, provided that they do not infringe upon the rights of others. Philosopher John Stuart Mill delineated our actions into two distinct categories: ’self-regarding actions’ and ’other-regarding actions’. The former solely impacts the individual, while the latter extends their influence to others or society at large. The state possesses the authority to regulate other-regarding actions in cases where legal rights are transgressed. As a proponent of libertarianism, Mill ardently advocated for absolute freedom of thought and expression. He vehemently opposed any attempts to coerce individuals into aligning with the dominant ideological paradigm. In his discourse, he posited if the entirety of humanity were to subscribe to a particular viewpoint, with a sole dissenter opposing it, society would be unjustified in suppressing the dissenter’s voice. Such suppression would mirror a despotic regime, where a solitary voice reigns supreme. Ultimately, the hegemony of a uniform interpretation of the idea of India curtails the democratic spirit, stifling opposition to the ruling regime, even in contexts where it is at fault. This inadvertently leads to an alignment of support for the regime with patriotism. Such circumstances resemble a Hegelian state, wherein the ruler’s pronouncement, "I am the state, and my decrees are law," resonates with the sentiments attributed to Louis XVI.

The expanding nation-state encompasses all aspects of people’s lives, leading to a growth in anti-national sentiment and a reduction in personal autonomy. Embracing and integrating these contradictions can diminish the space for anti-national rhetoric of a power-driven primitive state. There is an inverse relationship between the primitive state and the acceptance of diversity. Furthermore, in its quest for dominance, the state resembles tribalism. A stringent action plan is advised to regulate the nation-state. Deviation from the national code is deemed anti-national, thus violating the principles of an open society. In such a society, nothing should hinder individuals from fully developing their abilities and personalities, and social and legal institutions should be adaptable to enhance individual freedom.
Compromised Internal Sovereignty in the context of External Sovereignty rhetoric

The rhetoric of external sovereignty often overshadows the compromised state of internal sovereignty. Understanding the concepts of external and internal sovereignty is vital for maintaining robust and steady governance. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 recognized sovereignty as the defining characteristic of a state. Sovereignty represents the ultimate and indisputable power, evident in a state’s assertion to be the exclusive creator of laws within its borders. Internal sovereignty pertains to the seat of supreme authority within the state, while external sovereignty concerns the state’s ability to operate independently and self-sufficiently on the global front.

State sovereignty ostensibly reinforces the government’s claim to be the de facto representative of the state. However, the government often overlooks that elections are a mechanism for assigning rulers limited responsibility and legitimacy, albeit temporarily. The allure of an electoral majority can tempt rulers to broaden the interpretation of electoral results and seek validation for their exaggerated and self-centred notions of the electorate’s voice. This expansive interpretation enables the ruler and their allies to transform the purpose of competitive politics from a mere selection process to a mandate for establishing a new order, purportedly for a state-driven overhaul of ideas and social relations. Essentially, it is the imposition of a mandate on an electoral triumph.

The government’s dominant culture is poised to revert to its fundamental characteristics: the use of state power to quell dissent, combined with a lack of tolerance for standard opposition; the undermining of institutions through political domination and distinct majoritarian politics that prompt societal segments to marginalize minorities. Presently, we witness the emergence of authoritarian populism in countries where governments have been mostly passive. Fascism isn’t escalating in nations with active governments; rather, it flourishes where many are overlooked. This has given rise to illiberalism and the stifling of dissent. Increasing partisanship has also led to the exclusionary nature of the political economy, resulting in a sectarian outlook. The perspective of "us versus them dominates, causing a deterioration in discourse quality and an absence of introspection within partisan factions. Consequently, the power blocs and the narrative of us versus them render the government unrepresentative of the marginalized voices.

In essence, this creates a state that is paranoid and obsessed with security, leading to the inception of a surveillance state [6]. Additionally, the state amplifies threats to its external sovereignty to bolster its internal sovereignty. A prime example is the smear campaign in Indian elections involving Pakistan and Bangladesh, where the narrative of external sovereignty is leveraged to gain an advantage in domestic politics.

India Becoming a Primitive State

The state emerges as the most formidable organization, scarcely impeded by internal reservations or external limitations. While individuals in society are civilized, the state remains fundamentally primitive, akin to a colossal predator. The ignorance and sometimes absence of robust public opinion or potent international law fails to curb the state’s predatory nature. Although national identification is ancient, it has pervaded every aspect of the modern world, becoming the paramount source of significance. Nations have transformed into enigmatic emblems, akin to totems, under whose aegis we congregate like primitives seeking refuge [7].

Since gaining independence, India has faced numerous internal security challenges, including insurgencies, terrorist attacks, caste and communal violence, riots, and electoral violence. Despite a significant decline in collective violence, its impact has been more deadly than all of India’s external wars combined [8]. This has resulted in the centralization of power within India’s internal security mechanisms. As a result, the state has repeatedly exercised substantial control over its citizens through laws such as the Sedition Law, Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, and the Defence and Internal Security of India Act.

The escalating internal security threat has rendered the state paranoid, undermining the fundamental principles of contract theory where the state’s role is to safeguard individuals from such threats. This growing paranoia and preoccupation with security turned India into a predominant state. It has fostered a divide between the state and the individual, giving rise to a ’deep state’—a scenario where the state’s actions are dictated and swayed by the vested interests of a powerful elite, further perpetuating the subjugation of individuals.

Where to turn?

Fundamentally, we can consider two options to transform India’s undeveloped state. Firstly, global openness is necessary to circumvent a parochial state that is centred on majoritarian ethnic nationalism. Open engagement helps to curb the rise of fundamentalist nationalism. Conversely, a closed state and society are susceptible to narrow-minded instincts. Furthermore, engaging with an adversarial state can diminish tensions arising from ethnic conflicts. For example, the continuous dialogue between India and Pakistan could alleviate the strains of ethnic nationalism that stem from defining one’s nation in opposition to an adversary. It is now virtually impossible to maintain separate national histories. We have progressed beyond that phase, and only a unified world history that weaves together various narratives from all nations, aiming to uncover the true dynamics that drive them, can be meaningfully composed. The historical development of states has influenced all nations globally through the modern communication network. For instance, early 20th-century interactions and communications with global political forces laid the groundwork for India’s internationalism.

Second, openness to the inner self and narrating a co-existing contradictory history of narrations rather than appealing to the hegemonic rationale of the state is the need of the hour. However, one can leave it to the state to resolve the conflicting interests. The democratic institutions must be protected to avert committed institutions. It is better to restructure these institutions to empower the citizens of a nation-state. Empowering individuals is crucial for establishing strong foundations and evading vested interests’ influence.

(Author: Ajay Kumar Mishra teaches Economics at Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga, India)