I really wonder where the term patriotism originated from. Why do I need to be a patriot? Why is it that the most downtrodden of the countries have given birth to maximum patriots?
Probably the question will remain unanswered even after ages. But is it mandatory to be a patriot? The obvious answer will be yes. Curiously I would like to trace the origin of patriotism. Observantly nations which have encouraged hero-worship suffer from this jingoism. The root of patriotism stems from the fight against perfidy. I would like to cite a few examples historically, though I have never been a very bright student on the subject.
In the 12th century, BC Raja Jaichand had joined hands with Mohammad Ghauri to defeat his adversary Prithviraj Chauhan who had eloped with his daughter Samyukta. Jaichand was aghast to the match as Prithvi was his sworn enemy. He didn’t lend his son-in-law a helping hand when Ghauri attacked India again. During the first encounter, Chauhan had spared Ghauri. Undoubtedly it was a blunder due to which the nation is suffering until today. Ghauri had retaliated to take the full advantage of the situation in which the Ajmeri ruler had fallen prey. In this context indisputably Prithviraj Chauhan is a nationalist and Jaichand a traitor. The Ghurid emperor was just an outsider who had milked the situation for his own benefit paving way for the devastation the country couldn’t come out from in eight centuries to be precise. It is said that history repeats itself. Many monarchs came, ruled and were overthrown in due course of time. The only difference is that the characters changed. The ones who were outsiders eight hundred years ago have merged with the nation as a result of which their successors are the citizens of this country.
Half a dozen centuries later the Nawab of Bengal Siraj Ud Daula suffered at the hands of the British despite being better equipped with more resources and French alliance. Robert Clive the British commander didn’t even have to do much. Siraj had defectors like Mir Jafar and Rai Durlabh in his ranks who were enough to change the fate of the nation. They were financially aided by Jagat Seth. Jafar did ascend the throne only to be ousted by the Brits. Till date, he carries the title Quam-e-Gaddar which means traitor of the community. In this scenario Siraj was defending his land, Siraj wanted to exercise his gluttony and the East India Company were mere outsiders.
I am definite you must be getting closer to my intention. Bhagat Singh was India’s first unofficial leftist though it isn’t sure whether he ever read Marx or was ever influenced by Lenin’s activism. But whatever he said or did was somewhere close to communism- being an atheist or fight for equal rights as well as ensuring that the voice of the farmers gets escalated to the apex authority. He didn’t kill anyone but was executed without any fair trial by the British government. Gandhi had the power to appeal to the colonial rulers to spare him the noose. But he didn’t, allowing the execution he paved way for his brand of non-violent movement to remain the most sought after leader for the independence movement.
In some of my previous posts, I have mentioned that politicians know how to edit and create miscommunication. Bhagat Singh in his short life span did influence many of his followers. Before being put to death he had expressed concern that Bharat (as the country was termed) will face the maximum threat from the present leaders. He wasn’t alive to witness it but he was proved right by the people who took over the mantle from the British. Do I need to mention who’s a turncoat and who’s a devotee to the nation? No, I don’t. Even Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose wasn’t spared off. His whereabouts are still a mystery to the populace. We do not have a crystal clear picture as to what happened to Subhas. Yes, he fought the British. But in hindsight, we realise that our non-violent leaders were fighting him too. All these leaders had smelled freedom and wanted the cream. Bhagat Singh and Subhas were victims of engineered patriotism.
The political lineage has been carried forward. Savarkar who was tortured brutally by the British is now branded as a bigot. He was an atheist too. People who criticise Savarkar’s ideology and his allegiance to the nation are advised to pay a visit to the Cellular Jail in Port Blair. He was asked to sign on a petition that he doesn’t support Gandhi’s Quit India movement. Does it make him a conspirator? If that is so then Mahatma also declined to support Bhagat Singh. He becomes a traitor as well. Here starts the division between us and them. It is an age-old clash which is hardly going to stop ever.
So in the present situation, the cyber generation leftists, ultra secular, pseudo-intellectuals and the political infidels have decided to fish in troubled waters. A student dies amidst tragedy. Is it obligatory to know which caste he belongs to? What if he is a Dalit? Has a student died or a Dalit? Similarly whatever happened in JNU seems orchestrated by buggers with vested interests. You may not support the inaction of the government but who has allowed you to raise anti-India slogans? You express solidarity with mass murderers and expect the nation to pay you for your education, hostel fees and cheap canteen? Never can it be allowed. You might have political ambitions but not at the cost of the safety and security of the realm. That is why in all contexts people remonstrating against the country as well as their sympathisers are traitors. I do not need to be a nationalist to save my country from their clutches. I know that these infidels would never leave the nation as nowhere on this planet they’ll get a more amicable place to demonstrate against the motherland. That is why the developed nations do not have celebrated nationalists.
anirbanobserves 