Can our idea of India accommodate multiple nationalisms?

Dimapur, September 21: On September 17, the Naga Scholars’ Association conducted “a special talk” based on ‘Memory, history, culture in federal India: Can our idea of India accommodate multiple nationalisms?’
The event was conducted at the School of International Studies, JNU, in New Delhi, a press communiqué from Naga Scholars Association said today.
The speakers of the event, Dr Susmita Dasgupta, economist with the Ministry of Steel, began with the statement that India would lose the opportunity ‘to enrich itself’ by ‘ignoring regional history like that of the Nagas in North East India.’
According to her, the idea of India needs to be widened, deepened, expanded and should be able to promote multiple nationalities within.
“India needs to appreciate and endorse every aspect of human race coming to India, and that is how India is created,” she stated. For her, the Constitution of India has given enough space for the promotion of diversity and she believed Indian nationalism is unique in the sense unlike the European construct of nationalism based on oppressive uni-dimensional discourse rather Indian nationalism is a product of confluence of civilizations.
Dr. Dasgupta also stated that the concept of Hindutva–the “project” to create a Hindu state–was ‘causing problems’ to Indian nationalism because of its “regressive attempt”.
“During the 18th and 19th century, the Indian society was pathetic with so many repressions against the dalits and women, and people were subjected to law and caught in the clutches of tradition,” she said. So, the tradition replete with casteism and oppression is in fact hindrance for the progress of nationalism for the speaker. Her idea of India is instead based on the promotion of multiple nationalities and identities.
Although, conceptually the idea of India is clear, however, the most difficult part for the speaker is living out the concept as a concrete being – determine through its behavior of being India, the release said. She identified three problems: first is the law which is an abstraction, second is the failure of education system, and the third is industrially led economy. According to her, if my entire being is abstracted for the sake of law my being is depersonalized, thus, deprived of my beingness in public domain. Also, uniform education system and common syllabus failed to capture the situational relations and local needs.
She believed that “we are not growing within our culture, thus, we are fragmented. So, India is not growing because our idea of self is fragmented and that discourages ones’ true existence.
According to her, the identity as, say, the Nagas, Punjabis, Tamils, Assamese etc. as Indian must be encouraged to grow. However, she lamented that if we press and assert our identity then one is dubbed as anti-nationalist. Also, India as a nation according to her, has failed to make the citizens a productive agent through economic cycle which otherwise has the potentiality to help in shaping India, she stated.
“The whole argument can be shortly summarized that your culture is essential to be part of great India. Unless you know and identify your culture, you cannot be part of universality. If social and cultural roots are recognized then the fragmentation of India will be overcome.”
Therefore, the very idea of Indian nationalism should give space and accommodate everyone to assert their identity, she added.
The session was chaired by Dr Rakesh Batabyal, the author of ‘JNU: The making of a University’ published in 2015. He is a faculty in Centre for Media studies at JNU and also a visiting professor of Tokyo University, Japan.
The rapporteur of the session was Dr Lungthui Yang Riamei who teaches at Delhi University. The session ended with a vote of thanks by Dr Zuchamo Yanthan, president of Naga Scholars’ Association.