By Saswat Pattanayak
What is the equation between
individualism and nationalism in the neocolonial
period?
With most nations breaking free from foreign
dominations (although quite many still remain
occupied, viz., Sikkim in India or Hawaii in US—and
their status are not likely to be challenged anytime
soon), have preached individual progress, what
effectively has taken place is an enforced allegiance
of the subjects towards the State.
In fulfilling the individual dreams, the State
persistently demanded individuals to give for the
country, not to assume what the country can do for
them. Most of us must have grown up with quoting the
Kennedy lines and reciting the national anthems of
our respective countries with pride.
This ideology of isolated patriotism has left us a
growing distrust for those who differed from us:
Isolated patriotisms have few features— national
ideologies, national interests, national flags, which
have unequivocally been uniquely crafted. This is
ironical, since the interests of people of the world
are hardly any different (food, clothes, shelter,
education and empowerment). Yet political leaderships
in each country draft their interests differently!
This love for one’s land as inscribed in national
anthems and portrayed in national flags have one
major purpose: to leave people feeling that they
exist, because they are different from the “others”.
The Others in this case have been defined by the
degree to which “they” have disagreed with “us”, and
by the type of nationalities they have had
(completely obliterating the historical similarities
in peoples’ struggles to gain independence). This has
led to an assumes sense of right vs wrong war where
we are always right and they are always wrong, and as
united we stand, “we” are defined by our
nationalities rather than our intrinsic similarities
(for example, the people of Latin America in their
struggles, the African Americans in theirs, the
colonial peoples of Asia in theirs—were all similar
in their approach towards their oppressors, yet they
never joined hands together, since they were made to
believe that they were of different countries having
different “interests”! So when Paul Robeson wrote to
Indonesian people, he was actually criticized back
home by the Black leaderships. And when Indo-China
war was on, civil rights leaders largely turned away
from protesting. Interests in home became more
crucial than interests outside. After all, that’s
what the primary lessons of good socialization
process-how to safeguard one’s own interests.
Hence when it’s family members preaching inhuman
sermons, our neighbors harassing their children, or
even our local politicians ransacking public wealth,
we are used not to take much notice. If the
government prescribes conscriptions or curfews, we
are the gullible law-abiders giving in to the
neofascists with glee.
To recognize these efforts, any expressions of
intolerance within one’s country are always met with
dire consequences by the respective police states.
But try enacting the same drama against, let’s say
other countries (the famous “enemy”
countries--burning effigies of Bush, Musharraf or
Saddam) and suddenly that becomes the hallmark of
free expressions. One quick mental exercise to assess
the “national” leaders (since there are not many
“world” leaders—except Mandela and Castro), and we
are well aware of the fear psychoses techniques they
employ against their people to keep them united. Yet
there are vehement expressions of oppositions against
some among them, depending on which side folks are
on. To be a “true” Indian, one needs to hate
Pakistan, to be a “true” Chinese one needs to hate
Japanese, to be a “true” American, one needs to show
disdain towards Iraq or towards anyone who is not
with the Bush administration, notwithstanding that
the vice versa are true in all cases too.
In quest to affirm one’s true identity of
nationalistic allegiance, one unfortunately has been
relegated to hate something. Reverse the question:
Who does one need to love, in order to be a true
anything? Such questions are not much asked. But of
course, the propaganda mill teaches that for unity to
prevail, people need to love each other. Then again,
the mill teaches that the “each other” need to be
part of the same territory.
For its not forming human communities which is the
priority here, it’s ruling a country, which is.
And to rule subjects as a unitary, homogenous, one
culture whole, a sense of acute distrust towards
potential threats (in case of none, threats need to
be manufactured) becomes necessary. National flags
are symbolic not just of a country’s unique colors of
identity from another, but they have historically
always been a means of asserting one’s standing on
one’s land (remember that all the colonial struggles
were led by flag-marching freedom fighters). But the
irony is that the flags during colonial times by
struggling people were in retaliation to the
imposition of a foreign flag, not a novelty by any
standard. In the hands of fighters, flags call war.
They shout protests. They cry freedom. In the hands
of the oppressors, flags become a shame. They become
systematic means to declare that no one is above the
state, no one is above the rulers, howsoever right
the individual might be, howsoever wrong the state
machinery might be.
As we grow more individualistic, our social
commitments also become an extension of the same
trait. Isolationistic patriotism that proves
reactionary becomes the end-result. When as freedom
fighters, patriotism is displayed, it is epitome of
mass consciousness to build a new society of
cooperation. When as rulers, they display patriotism,
it easily gets converted into the weapon to subjugate
the vast majority of people under constant fear of
the “others”, those others who do not bow to the same
flag. And we too often sadly forget that it was
Hitler who as the ruler led the most patriotic bunch
of people ever in the world.
Tags: Saswat, Philosophy, Colonialism, Capitalism, Immigrant