Our nationalism turned narrow, sectarian: Yogendra Yadav interview

In this edition of 'Off The Beaten Track', political theorist and activist Yogendra Yadav is interviewed by Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay, which turns out to be a sharp and introspective dialogue on the evolving idea of Indian nationalism.

At a time when the word “nationalist” is increasingly used to divide rather than unite, Yadav argues for reclaiming its true essence — rooted in diversity, belonging, and democratic ideals.

You’ve written that India’s nationalism today has become “overly imitative,” even calling it a copycat of failed models like Germany in the 1930s, Israel’s state policy, or Pakistan’s religious nationalism. Can you explain what you mean?

We’ve reduced our nationalism to something narrow and sectarian. The word “nationalism” once signified strength, inclusivity, and moral clarity. It brought us together as Indians, not against our neighbours, but with oppressed people across the world — in South Africa, Latin America, Palestine. It helped us forge solidarity.

Now, nationalism is used as a weapon. It demands aggressive posturing toward neighbours and uniformity within — not unity, but sameness. This is deeply troubling. Today’s nationalism is not born of Indian soil. It mimics the most dangerous forms of nationalism in modern history — Nazi-era Germany, Israel’s militarised model, and Pakistan’s religious exclusivism. That’s not just intellectually lazy; it’s morally dangerous.

Also read: All-party outreach to draw zilch if BJP doesn’t give up divisive agenda

You also wrote this is not just the current government's doing. What else is to blame for this transformation?

Exactly. While the BJP and RSS are chiefly responsible for hijacking nationalism, the liberal, secular, and Left elites are equally culpable. We neglected nationalism. We didn’t invest in nurturing its inclusive, plural version. After the early decades post-independence, we became indifferent. Nationalism was left vulnerable, and others walked in and distorted it.

We acted like nationalism was toxic because we imported European ideas about it. In Europe, “nationalist” often means racist, xenophobic and supremacist. That’s not what Indian nationalism ever meant. But we internalised that guilt. We abandoned our own cultural symbols — from the chakra to our diverse languages — because we feared they’d sound like the Sangh Parivar. And in doing so, we alienated the people we were supposed to connect with.

Also read: Why the right wing detests Prof Ali Khan Mahmudabad and his ilk

In the context of the Indo-Pakistan conflict, you critiqued the Supreme Court’s handling of Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad’s case. What alarmed you the most about that situation?

It was surreal and frightening. Here was a professor making thoughtful, nuanced observations about India’s military doctrine, tokenism in representation, and the dangers of war mongering. These were not radical statements — they reflected constitutional freedoms.

Yet, instead of asking whether his posts violated any law, the Supreme Court turned it into a moral debate: “Doesn’t he have duties?” “He’s pathetic.” This wasn’t law. This was uncle-level gossip in a park.

There was no mention of Article 19, no discussion of legal exceptions. And the worst part? Even Kapil Sibal, a seasoned lawyer, didn’t invoke those rights — because he knew the court wouldn’t be receptive.

Also read: How Modi, Trump-like, told a divisive story to get his mojo back

When courts ignore constitutional rights, it doesn’t just betray individuals. It weakens democracy.

You say Indian Muslims are being treated like second-class citizens. What does this mean for India's future?

It’s heartbreaking. The message is loud and clear — from the Citizenship Amendment Act to the Prime Minister’s dog whistles — that Muslims are not equal citizens. The CAA was essentially a banner saying, “No Muslims, please.” This is not just political arrogance. It’s a withdrawal of constitutional protections.

After Partition, many Muslims stayed back, trusting in the Indian Constitution. Today, that trust is being shattered. When even the Supreme Court doesn’t safeguard your rights, where do you turn? Yet, Indian Muslims have shown remarkable dignity and faith in democracy, despite relentless marginalization.

Your long-time collaborator Suhas Palshikar seemed to suggest that you underplayed the present regime’s role by focusing on historical neglect. How do you respond?

I agree that the BJP and RSS bear primary responsibility. But it’s also true that we — the liberal, secular, left — failed to guard the idea of Indian nationalism. We let it be stolen.

We didn’t reinvest emotionally, culturally, or spiritually. The generation after the 1950s stopped actively imagining India. Our elite, especially the English-speaking class, lived culturally disconnected lives. They adopted the West’s guilt and vocabulary, even when it didn’t apply. This left our nationalism hollow and vulnerable to capture.

You talk about how we became awkward about Indian culture. Could you elaborate on that?

Culture was always key to nationalism — myths, symbols, songs, languages. But the modern Indian elite viewed culture with suspicion, especially if it seemed “Hindu.” We forgot that plural Indian culture could be secular, inclusive, diverse.

Also read: Prem Shankar Jha Exclusive | Is PM Modi redefining nationalism in India?

Nehru embraced this — look at how he chose the chakra, the tricolour, and wrote The Discovery of India. But later elites became embarrassed about being Indian in any deep cultural sense. And then, when the right-wing said Garv se kaho hum Hindu hain, we had no credible cultural answer.

We abandoned culture. They filled the vacuum.

Do you see signs of hope or a way forward?

Yes, but only if we return to the core of Indian nationalism: belonging without othering. The craving for identity and pride is natural. If we don’t provide positive belonging, people will turn to RCB jingoism or Hindu supremacism. The solution isn’t to mock them — it’s to offer a better, deeper sense of who we are.

We must answer: What is India? Should I be proud of it? Do I owe something to it? We need to be able to say, without guilt, “Yes, I love this country” — and then hold it accountable to be better. That emotional, cultural, and moral investment is what can reclaim nationalism for all Indians.

The content above has been generated using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.