4 reasons Rajdeep Sardesai says he too is an 'anti-national'

Rajdeep Sardesai has finally thrown his experienced hat in the ring of the ongoing "nationalism vs. anti-nationals" debate with this intrepid and no-nonsense article in the Hindustan Times.

The India Today consulting editor, in a masterstroke, has claimed "I too am an anti-national" and has gone on to put up a fierce and eloquent defence of the argument. While we urge Mr Sardesai to pen such gallant belles-lettres for DailyO as well, we give you the four moot points that we think he's tried to make.    

Speechifying isn't sedition

As per law. As Mr Sardesai writes, "Yes, I am anti-national because while I am discomfited by the slogan shouting at JNU in support of Parliament terror convict Afzal Guru, I do not see it as an act of sedition".

In other words, anti-government tirades, even sloganeering and advocacy of secession, when done in a peaceful manner, do not amount to sedition. They firmly fall under freedom of expression and do not breach that sacrosanct line bordering on hate speech and incitement to violence. Alternative views, no matter how tempestuous or volatile, must be entertained and patiently heard out in a functioning democracy.

No doublespeak on nationalism

Nationalism isn't anyone's private property, and no one party or individual has the final word on it. This is a work in progress, an ongoing, and possibly never-ending debate, which must go on to expand its own ambit and underscore individual rights and liberties over and above narrow majoritarian impulses.

As Sardesai writes, "If the Kashmiri youth today see Afzal as someone who was framed, they should be challenged to a legal and political debate but can they be branded as 'jihadists' simply because their views are repugnant to the rest of the country?

Would we then by extension also suggest that the Hindu Mahasabha, which even today glorifies Nathuram Godse every January 30, even as the rest of India mourns the Mahatma, is an anti-national organisation? Should BJP MP Sakshi Maharaj's defence of Godse be seen as an anti-national act or not, or will definitions of nationalism be shaped by the convenience of power politics?"

India's inherent pluralism

Mr Sardesai, who calls himself a "proud Hindu" - a description most forcefully and frequently used by the rightwing Hindutva trolls - and says he wakes up to Gayatri mantra, nevertheless declares he likes his beef steak and pork sorpotel too, as well as the customary Diwali shrikhand.

"I celebrate the rich diversity of my country through food: Korma on Eid, pork sorpotel with my Catholic neighbours in Goa during Christmas and shrikhand during Diwali is my preferred diet. The right to food of my choice is again a freedom which I cherish and am unwilling to cede."

This playful dietary plurality, Sardesai points out, is hardly extraordinary: in fact, it's basically Indian. A multi-ethnic, multi-religious democracy such as ours, should not hang nationalism (in any of its virulent versions) on a puny peg of gastronomic (or sartorial) diktats.    

Constitution, above it all

The robust text that is the Indian Constitution, drafted by that eminent lawyer-thinker-philosopher BR Ambedkar, is something Mr Sardesai holds in high esteem. As we infer, he places it above any holy book, despite being a proud Hindu. For him rule of law, civil liberties and shared responsibilities form the scaffold of nationalism, not any peculiar adherence to a particular belief. Sardesai thinks if questioning discrimination and bringing "inconvenient truths in(to) the public domain makes me an anti-national, then so be it".

"I am anti-national because I believe in Ambedkar's concept of a republican constitution that places the citizen and rule of law at its core. No one has the right to impose their vision of 'cultural nationalism' on a diverse society in the guise of 'one nation, one religion, one culture'."

In solidarity, Mr Sardesai. In solidarity and respect.