Problem is not mouthing 'Bharat Mata ki jai', it is RSS

After the prolonged and widespread criticism of "Bharat Mata ki jai" as a mandatory slogan superseding "Jai Hind", or for that matter "Jai jawan, jai kisan", Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) supremo Mohan Bhagwat has clarified that "Bharat Mata ki jai" is not a mandatory slogan.

But slogans don't make nationalism. A complex of factors do. For instance, who is a true or representative Indian? There would be a lot of answers. For example, the preamble to the Constitution speaks of a "socialist secular democratic republic".

But there is a significant number of Indians who believe that Hindus form the core of Indian nationalism. But Hindus are divided into castes and sub-castes. The Dalits, adivasis (including the scheduled tribes) and other backward classes (OBCs) are often not considered at par by the upper caste Hindus.

Also read: Why Sangh Parivar is the real anti-national

In fact, Babasaheb Ambedkar even burned the Manusmriti in protest of Brahmanism which he argued was anti-Dalit and anti-OBC. He asked his followers to become Buddhists. This rejection of upper caste Hinduism by the main architect of the Constitution was a direct challenge to the "Hindu" notion of nationalism, summed up by the RSS slogan "Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan".

The major revolt against the mandatory use of Hindi in Tamil Nadu, when a number of youth burnt themselves, protesting the imposition of Hindi, was a tragic reminder that not everyone was willing to accept Hindi as their state language.

Also read: Dear BJP, I’m a Hindu and I reject Hindutva

This is the general attitude in the southern part of India. And also in Northeast India. Even in some parts of northern India, for instance, in the states of Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab, though many people know Hindi, they prefer to speak in their local language.

In the last general elections, incumbent Union finance minister Arun Jaitley lost from Punjab, a major reason for it being his inability to speak Punjabi fluently. So the local language is dear to people in every state. So the "Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan" slogan could not work as the epitome of nationalism in this pluralist, diverse and staunchly democratic country.

But is there a deficit in nationalism in this country? During the wars in 1962, 1965 and 1971, didn't the Indian people rally behind the Indian flag, Indian military and Indian government? Didn't millions of Indians cry along with the then prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru in 1962 following defeat in the India-China war and thereafter when the great singer Lata Mangeshkar sang that poignant song, "Ai Mere Watan Ke Logon?"

Also read: Six ways Modi sarkar is dragging India back to the dark age

When the US threatened India with its 7th Fleet ships during the Bangladesh liberation struggle in 1971, the Indian public was undaunted and Bangladesh was liberated with the help of the Indian Army. Do critics of Indian nationalism know that a Jew, major general JFR Jacob, played a major role in that war, not to speak of lieutenant general JS Aurora, a Sikh, and general Sam Manekshaw, a Parsi, who later became a beloved field marshal? So where is the question of Indian nationalism being weakened or outdated? Compared to most countries of the global south, our record on the issue of unity and integrity has been outstanding.

But those who would like to mix caste, religion and a melange of ancient or medieval Hinduism as nationalism, are ab initio questioning the Constitution. As stated earlier, the preamble, fundamental rights, directive principles, fundamental duties are all part of what the Supreme Court has ruled is the "basic structure" of the Constitution, which cannot be amended.

Are the protagonists of Hindutva nationalism advocating a reorientation of the Constitution? But that is impermissible. But the way vice-chancellors are refusing to allow Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) faculty entering their university, as in Jharkhand, because they are allegedly "anti-national", is certainly a violation of the norms.

So is the public slandering in Chhattisgarh of activist and scholar Bela Bhatia, and her husband, the renowned economist and collaborator of Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, Jean Dreze, who because of his love for India, became an Indian citizen, just because Bela helped a tribal woman who had been raped by security personnel in Bastar.

There is nothing seriously wrong with our nationalism which reflects our pluralism and diversity, and is based on one of the finer constitutions. The Indian Constitution has stood the test of time, as top lawyers and the Supreme Court has repeatedly held.

The problem is with those who do not want such a Constitution which is pluralist, diverse and regularly updated. Neither should slogans be mandatory, nor constitutional norms challenged.