One hobby that I don’t pursue as much is watching movies. I don’t go to the cinema much, but I made an exception recently with Pathaan. I partly went as a personal expression of solidarity in response to the unfortunate calls for boycott that had affected the film in advance.

Pathaan was a fast-paced action movie, but not the sort of film I normally enjoy. But one dialogue particularly lingered in my head, long after I came away from the theatre. The character played by Deepika Padukone asks the titular character, Pathaan, played by Shahrukh Khan, if he is Muslim. He does not acknowledge or deny it, but simply says that all that he knows is that he belongs to this country. There was a certain humanity in this statement, it was very poignant, to just celebrate the idea of belongingness, without any baggage or differences, religious or otherwise.

Nationalism as a relational concept

The word ‘nationalism’ belongs to a larger family of words that mean one’s identification with a particular group of people, whether that group is defined by territorial boundaries, like a country, or by language, or by a way of life, or something else. This idea – or even desire, sometimes – of wanting to belong comes with the nature of the human condition. And, as human beings, we have spent millenia trying to devise ways and means of organising ourselves – socially and politically – in search of identity and belongingness.

The fundamental question – of how we relate to each other – is at once personal and political. There are many ways of answering this question, but I think the most important thing to remember when we speak of group identity is that the composition of groups is never singular or unchanging; it is, on the contrary, always dynamic. This is a direct consequence of the peripatetic nature of the human species, constantly curious, intrepidly travelling, discovering, intermingling, settling…. This is the secret of success of human society – the undying and almost perilous tendency to explore and make journeys.

Crafting a common identity

In truth, we are not one people. We do not have a singular or insular or pure identity. We are many peoples, our ancestors have come from far away places. We have many histories, our families have peculiar struggles and traumas, unique lifestyles, we speak many languages, we have different eating habits, and we practise different religions.

Having said all this, though, using territory, or the concept of a nation, or the idea of nationalism, to create identity is not a bad thing. As Yuval Noah Harari says, in his treatise on 21 lessons for the 21st century, nationalism is not rooted in human biology, or a natural part of the human psyche, but national bonds are strong and useful, because they evoke loyalty and human empathy, and can even be used to advantage.

In multi-cultural, diverse, plural societies, as India is, the question has always been about what is the unifying frame. How do you craft a common identity?

The historian Mridula Mukherjee points out that the word “nationalism” itself contains so much nuance, and depending on how you see it, it can encompass the ideas of progressive nationalism, a revolutionary pro-people nationalism, and a regressive and jingoistic nationalism. Hitler’s nationalism, for example, was very different from Gandhi and Nehru’s nationalism.

In India, particularly, being a diverse country, people hold different views about nationalism, the idea of India, and our place in the world. We must respect these differences, not silence those who hold a different view on nationalism and patriotism for the country. Elevating only a single view – one that idolises the nation and staunchly rejects any internal or external criticism – will only Other communities and create polarities that will cause further friction, and lead to violence.

At the end of the day, it is important to question, what is the defining characteristic of a nation? While it is certainly the territorial boundary, it is also the collection of people that form a country’s defining feature.

Origins of India’s constitutional nationalism

“Constitutional nationalism”, like “nationalism”, also has a family of words and phrases that belong with each other, such as “the national culture”, “constitutional morality”, “constitutional patriotism”.

We have already said that we are a historic “people”, and that we have a very long, meandering history. Obviously, we have adorned, worn many identities, and shed many. We have had many rulers. We have had kings, tribal chiefs, rulers who came from outside. We have been ruled by dynasts and religious orders and even a company – East India Company. So we are a very wide array of civilisations, histories, traditions, who follow a diverse code of rights and wrongs, and not to forget in the middle of all this, there is dispute, conflict, turmoil and after things settle down, brief spells of peace and prosperity. We are a multitude of peoples – we are not one people.

We have many sub-identities, these identities are based on our differences. This is a key attribute of these identities: national identity; religious identity; class identity; regional identity; professional identity; tribal or clan identity…

So, how to craft the national identity, the common identity. This, in a nutshell, is the unifying project, which was central to making the Constitution of India.

After many years of struggle, we came out of the shadow of colonial rule. We rejected the colonial identity, for that was an identity that was imposed on us. But while we rejected it, we had still not found a common identity.

That momentous epoch-making event happened when we gave ourselves the Constitution. By virtue of that Constitution, we gave to ourselves a new membership – of the Citizenship of this country i.e. India, that is Bharat.

Nationalism as contained in the Constitution

The Constitution of India is a very curious document. Part I (Article 1 to 4) lays out the territory of the country. The question of territory is now solved to a reasonable extent. Part II of the Constitution settles the citizenship question.

It was a very modern and scientific experiment of collective nature. Our Constitution is drafted as a positive, forward-looking, inclusive document that binds the aspirations of all Indians. The Preamble expresses the resolve of the people to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic securing justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity of its citizens. This achievement is all the more noteworthy if we consider that in a Constituent Assembly of 299, 255 members (85%) were Hindus. Despite being in a massive majority, the Constitution drafters took pains to protect the interests of the minority, the oppressed, and the dissenters.

All our earlier identities were based on differences, but the status of being an Indian Citizen endows a unifying and common character to all its various hitherto diverse citizens. Difference exists, of course. All the multitudes of differences will continue. It is just that, with the Constitution, those differences cease to matter. There is no value being put on those differences. That is just diversity. Or at least that is the stated premise of the Constitution. No one religion, lifestyle, or culture is preferred over another. In one stroke, the Constitution mutes these differences, it does not negate them; they just stop mattering any more.

In other words, the Constitution provides a way forward for the diverse groups to fully express their differences, and live fully by their unique codes.

Features of constitutional nationalism

Constitutional nationalism, in this form and manner, has several features.

The first is the maintenance of secular character. When we merge national identity with a particular form of religious identity – it leads to othering a host of people. That is why maintenance of neutrality or secular character is of essential importance, because that characteristic is what gives each of us the space to live our unique lives and different identities.

You might ask, at this stage, what is secularism? It is not, one must clarify, the negation of religion. The traditional understanding of secularism is that there is a separation of the state and religion. But the ideals of secularism actually go quite deep, and is not merely about maintaining boundaries between state and religion. Secularism entails a commitment to the quest for truth. And the Constitution does precisely this, through its various bits and pieces. The Directive Principles of State Policy speak of the importance of scientific beliefs. There is also an overarching theme of compassion towards others, not because of any religious solidarity, but because of the compassion one feels towards fellow human beings. Article 14 enshrines a commitment to equality. Our constitution also recognises that all this is of no value unless you have the freedom to think, investigate and experiment. This is where Article 19, the right to freedom of speech, and Article 21, the right to life and liberty, come in. All these cumulatively give us courage to fight biases and oppressive regimes.

The second feature of constitutional nationalism is that it gives us a code to negotiate differences, and pursue the common goals of peace, progress, prosperity. These are all fundamental goals that have motivated every human society since we existed as a species. This code is crafted through an elaborate system contained in the preamble, our fundamental rights and the directive principles, and continues into the checks and balances that keep different arms of the state accountable to each other and the people.

The third feature of constitutional nationalism is that it requires citizens to practice citizenship everyday. Citizenship rights are the glue that binds us together, the common journey we undertake. These rights take on many forms, such as the right to freedom, not just our own, but also that of others, ensuring that everyone has space to exercise their individualities. Or upholding a civic code where we do not instigate, perpetuate, or otherwise condone, othering. Or where we ask questions of the government, preventing the state from becoming a carrier of hegemonic tendencies. We contest and debate. We vote.

A nation demands an everyday practice of asserting your citizenship rights. Nothing is a given, it has to be struggled for, fought for. It is your right, literally your birth right because of Part II of the Constitution of India. But you have to, every day of your life, take and assert that right, and sometimes on behalf of others who are less able. These efforts of maintaining our national identity are also what I would call part of constitutional nationalism.

In a modern democracy, therefore, the culture or nationalist project is therefore, essentially an Inclusive Project. We make efforts to make everyone feel included, to make them feel that they “belong”. People or peoples are already here – it is just that they have to be made to feel that they belong.

The fourth feature of constitutional nationalism is the creation of a syncretic culture. When we speak of things like these, we need to add one important caveat, that this story of constitutional nationalism, of this artificial, neutral, negotiable, identity we have gifted ourselves, was penned only in 1950. We are, therefore, by all means, very much still a young country. Contestations over identity creation are still happening, and things are still in turmoil. This was not unanticipated by the Constitution, for the powers that it grants – of negotiation and contestation – allow some very interesting things to happen. When diverse sub-cultures live together, negotiating their differences in a peaceful and harmonious fashion, over time, the country becomes a site of confluence, and our individual identities undergo evolutionary changes, in an organic fashion. This is also an element of constitutional nationalism – because this confluence and change is made possible by the coexistence of our diverse cultures as negotiated by the Constitution.

Take the contentious example of religion. Islam as practiced in Saudia Arabia and as practiced here are different, arguably influenced by local cultures and mores. Likewise, the presence of Islam as a modern day religion has had an impact on how Hinduism is practiced today. I am very sure if India was an insular, single religion country, we would have a very different version of Hindu religion in the country. By virtue of the intermingling of societies and communities, the result is a confluence of cultures, a syncretic culture.

This can be extended to other examples as well, such as the Dravidian/Sangam influence on north Indian culture, be it music or art; or Christian or Jewish culture in India.

A.K. Ramanujan’s Three Hundred Rāmāyaṇas, as another example, documents the history of the Rāmāyaṇa in India and Asia over a few thousand years. Depending on where you read it, in which language, society, and in which religious and historical context, the story of Rama is different. His study shows us that there is no such thing as the original Ramayana and that Valmiki’s Ramayana itself is only one among many Ramayana tellings.

All of these diversities exist because of multilingualism and multiculturalism, and arguably, what binds all of us is “Indianness”, which is the outcome of our allegiance to the Indian Constitution.

Maybe we could think about a kind of nationalism – one that does not pivot on hate or resentment or violence, but one that focuses inclusiveness and empathy and consideration for fellow human beings.

Mahatma Gandhi had said that “Affection cannot be manufactured or regulated by the law. One should be free to give full expression to their disaffection unless it incites violence.” This is where Upendra Baxi reminds us that we should be able to distinguish between “constitutional patriotism” (and fidelity to the constitutional purpose) and “statist patriotism” (what Gandhi called “manufacturing affection for the state”).

The strength of a nation is not gauged by the uniformity of opinion of its citizens or a public profession of patriotism. The true strength of a nation is when there is no threat from citizens expressing revolutionary views; when there is a free and open press that can criticise the government; and when citizens do not resort to violence against fellow citizens merely for expressing a contrary view or for just being different. That is when we will be truly free, and we will become the nation that our constitution builders envisioned for us – secular, democratic and free.

(Ajit Prakash Shah is former chief justice, Delhi high court and former chairperson, Law Commission of India. This is an edited version of the text of the address “Constitutional Nationalism” delivered at Dayapuram Arts and Science College for Women, Kerala on March 2, 2023. Courtesy: The Wire.)