Any progressive criticism of the nation’s archaic, discriminatory or irrational policies is vehemently denounced as “anti-national” and, hence, treacherous in nature. As such, Kant’s vision of man’s progress based on rational thinking, unfettered by the “dogmas and formulas” of bygone ages, appears to be an idealistic far cry from the contemporary reality, says Aritra Mukherjee.
At a time when, yet again, the international political relationship between India and Pakistan has taken a vicious turn for the worse, perusing Immanuel Kant’s ‘An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment’ (1784) alongside Umberto Eco’s intriguing observations in the essay, ‘Inventing the Enemy’ (2009) might aptly induce or insidiously seduce the mind to an inquisitive mood of self-reflexive scepticism. For what can be a better time to examine the ingredients of one’s patriotism than the very hour when there is an exhorting call to consolidate one’s national identity in unequivocally embodied terms of unquestioning loyalty? Loyalty to whatever goes by the name-tag of the nation, its tradition, progress and protection. Submerged in the dense, clamorous mist of a discourse defining what it denotes to be an exemplary “nationalist” and, conversely, a treacherous “anti-nationalist”, anyone desirous of getting a sense of their bearings amidst this confusion, might be led to wonder whether love for nation can, actually, coexist with the Kantian concept of enlightenment. Or, is it at all possible to have a well integrated country without any external enemy, threatening people with their so-called ugly, infernal, diseased, immoral and invasive otherness? How much of this impression of the adversary is a reality rooted in empirical facts and experiential understandings or based on direct emotive, cultural and intellectual engagement?
Submerged in the dense, clamorous mist of a discourse defining what it denotes to be an exemplary “nationalist” and, conversely, a treacherous “anti-nationalist”, anyone desirous of getting a sense of their bearings amidst this confusion, might be led to wonder whether love for nation can, actually, coexist with the Kantian concept of enlightenment.
Enlightenment, as defined by the eighteenth century German philosopher, is “man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity”. Such an “immaturity” is neither one that is equated with a child’s lack of worldly experience and learning, nor consequent upon any natural inability or accident, incapacitating someone from effectually exercising his or her rational faculties. This vacuousness is rather something that is brought upon themselves by the majority of a people of their own volition. Kant ascribes this paucity of maturity amongst the greater portion of a populace to an acute dearth of determination and courage to “[d]are to be wise”. Ergo, it becomes easier for a handful of people to set themselves up as guardians of the welfare of the public, society, culture, religion, nation and so on and so forth. These authoritative heads and voices further reinforce their power-vested social stature by convincing the masses, that they are not qualified or experienced enough to think on their own. Therefore, it is only fair that decisions are made for them by those appointed, almost anointed, leaders, who would, through their refined knowledge, intuition, experience, far-sightedness, honesty and self-sacrifice, ensure the security and progress of everyone. As such, the public needs only to accept the justifications proffered to them by the experts in the respective fields, and to give a sum of money by way of social duty or payment for the services availed. It is simply not necessary for the populace to stimulate and sharpen their intellectual capacities, thereby, indulging in argumentative discussions on varied socio-political, economic, religious, cultural and national issues.
On the contrary, it is advantageous for the so-called guardians that the masses continue to uncritically hold on to the prejudices and stereotypes, that frame and provide substance to their imagination of the self and the other. The rhetoric of propaganda makes generous use of time-tested, emotionally stirring popular phrases, images and beliefs, in order to garner support for projects that always claim to be beneficial for all. As a result, the people do not feel that it is imperative for them to ponder on the various aspects of their lives, beliefs and practices, which, till date, they have been in a habit of taking for granted. By nurturing their critical abilities, the people, individually and as a collective, achieve a chance to better themselves by beginning to rectifying the errors in the multiple systems, at the intersection of which we spend our lives. However, since enlightenment of the general public would equip them with the requisite self-confidence, language, logic and knowledge to not only question the decisions of the leading voices, but also suggest alternative solutions and interpretations, a leadership, fearful of the dissolution of its authoritative word, would endeavour to cripple such enlightenment by reading it as a sign of resistance.The rhetoric of propaganda makes generous use of time-tested, emotionally stirring popular phrases, images and beliefs, in order to garner support for projects that always claim to be beneficial for all. As a result, the people do not feel that it is imperative for them to ponder on the various aspects of their lives, beliefs and practices, which, till date, they have been in a habit of taking for granted.
Patriotism is one such highly charged aspect of our lives that requires us to whole-heartedly believe in the moral superiority of our respective nations. It also happens to be a label, using which any well-intentioned criticism can be stigmatized as something that is detrimentally alien to the so-called socio-cultural and religious fabric of the national tradition.
Patriotism is one such highly charged aspect of our lives that requires us to whole-heartedly believe in the moral superiority of our respective nations. It also happens to be a label, using which any well-intentioned criticism can be stigmatized as something that is detrimentally alien to the so-called socio-cultural and religious fabric of the national tradition. In other words, nation love not only demands from us to toe the line, but also to recognise it as the only line. Kant, on the other hand, proposed that the people of a nation should be given the freedom to use their rational powers when addressing the public. However, it would be rash to suppose that Kant was an anarchist, or he believed in a revolution that deposes one set of prejudices and enthrones another. Quite pragmatically, Kant distinguishes between two specific usages of reason, which he designates as “private” and “public” use respectively. While private use of reason necessitates that we follow the rules of the system to which we are presently subject, thereby, allowing the system to function; public use of reason enables us to tender our deliberations on the inefficacies of the system and suggest possible means of correcting such shortcomings. Furthermore, Kant makes a radical proposition- this time, probably too idealistic- by saying, “[t]o test whether any particular measure can be agreed upon as a law for a people, we need only ask whether a people could well impose such a law upon itself.” One needs only to remember the violent sundering of unified British India to identify the idealistic flavour of Kant’s advice. Did the then political powers take into consideration the opinions of the millions who were affected by this decision? According to the numerous stories and memoirs and interviews, such was not the case.
A patriotism one stanza deep and 52 seconds long manifests itself in braving the cool darkness of sound-proof movie theatres and incessantly vindicates itself by habitually gathering the bold vocabulary, catchy dialogues and larger-than-life images from popular, “desh bhakti” commercial movies which perpetuate a heavily romanticized imagination of what life as an Indian soldier or a farmer means. Such a patriotism would indeed find Kant’s propositions to be excellent objects of amusement. In the current phase of neo-nationalism, jingoistic love for the country brooks little disjunction between the “private” and “public” use of reason by a fellow countryman. Hence, for instance, a sector of the Indian Railways finds it perfectly within its ethical purview to issue a directive to its employees, forbidding them from criticizing any government policy not only in public but also in private social media chats. Failing to comply with the stated official order would incur disciplinary charges against the defaulters. Interestingly, patriotism continues to use the arguments of racial, linguistic, and religious unity to validate the nation’s foundation. However, all these criteria have been systematically demolished by the French historian Ernest Renan in his 1882 lecture titled, “What is a Nation?” Simply put, nothing but a people’s collective will to stay together makes a nation.In the current phase of neo-nationalism, jingoistic love for the country brooks little disjunction between the “private” and “public” use of reason by a fellow countryman. Hence, for instance, a sector of the Indian Railways finds it perfectly within its ethical purview to issue a directive to its employees, forbidding them from criticizing any government policy not only in public but also in private social media chats.
Indeed, Eco is again correct when he incisively points out, that the invention of a powerful external enemy is essential for maintaining national unity. For a country is never more internally destabilized than at a time when there is no alien force, threatening its existence with its malevolent propinquity.
Today, more than ever, patriotism consists in cultivating hatred and distrust, legitimized by the State sponsored narrative of national vulnerability in the face of an ever-awake, morally depraved external threat. As rightly indicated by Eco, the worship of one’s national values is intrinsically conjoined with the simultaneous demonization of another nation’s culture, religion and tradition. As a result, the picture created of the enemy derives more elements from our imagination than reality. It is the absolute desire to differentiate and ennoble our selfhood, which ultimately triggers this paradoxical process of vilification and alienation of those we do not consider as part of our nation. In such an eventuality, patriotism can even take the regressive form of boycotting creative productions, which have anything to do with artists from the “enemy” territory. Indeed, Eco is again correct when he incisively points out, that the invention of a powerful external enemy is essential for maintaining national unity. For a country is never more internally destabilized than at a time when there is no alien force, threatening its existence with its malevolent propinquity. Moreover, the adoption of a laissez-faire policy in the domain of cultural and intellectual cross-border reciprocation would corrode the delicately crafted and laboriously preserved sense of difference which, in turn, serves as an abiding rationale for the traumatic birth of the two hostile geo-political neighbours.
Having considered these arguments, it seems that patriotism can hardly be aligned with the Kantian concept of enlightenment. Any progressive criticism of the nation’s archaic, discriminatory or irrational policies is vehemently denounced as “anti-national” and, hence, treacherous in nature. As such, Kant’s vision of man’s progress based on rational thinking, unfettered by the “dogmas and formulas” of bygone ages, appears to be an idealistic far cry from the contemporary reality. In addition to this, it has been soundly demonstrated through comparative analysis by eminent scholars like Eco, that the presence of an external enemy is paradoxically an essential requirement, which enables a governing body to amalgamate the diverse ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural groups into one nation. Hence, applying the same logic by extension to the antagonistic relationship between India and Pakistan, we can justifiably infer that their mutual enmity actually functions as a catalyst, ultimately providing them with the energy to buttress their respective national identities, in terms of a superior and unified body of people. In this context, we can safely assume that while amity between Indians and Pakistanis can thrive in places where both are treated as South Asian foreigners, here and now, commenting on the prospect of their friendship, we might indeed borrow Forster’s closing words from A Passage to India, saying, “‘No, not yet,’ and the sky said, ‘No, not there.’”
Image via www.gg2.net
