by Venkkat G. 4 October 2021
Nationalism refers to the political, cultural, or psychological construct of identifying oneself as belonging to a part of a nation. It is a contested concept and can assume various forms. It could mean political nationalism or cultural nationalism, liberal nationalism or conservative nationalism, territorial nationalism or sub-nationalism. It also depends upon whose nationalism is being referred to, like for example Indian nationalism, Pakistani nationalism, Kashmiri nationalism, etc.
Justice on the other hand refers to the philosophical, political, or legal principles guiding individual and social action towards virtue. Even justice is a contested concept and can assume multiple forms. Justice can be attributed at the individual level or at the societal level. It can be procedural or substantive. It can be distributive or retributive. It can be grounded upon deontological principles or teleological ones. It can also mean upholding moral principles or promoting peace and prosperity in general.
Justice and nationalism are closely related concepts. They are assumed to be mutually interdependent upon each other. Nationalism is often used as a tool to attain justice and justice is often used as the foundation upon which nationalism is built. This mutual co-relation between the two can be explicitly seen with the example of the Indian National Movement that was grounded upon the principle of attaining justice from colonial rule. But however, they are also seen as mutually antithetical concepts at times. While nationalism is state-oriented in general, justice is people-oriented. While nationalism is majoritarian in nature, justice seeks to protect the interests of minorities. While nationalism is national in scope, justice is international and universalistic.
This mutual relationship between ‘nationalism’ and ‘justice’ can be best analyzed comparatively through the example of abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir, which we will be looking into in the upcoming section.
Convergence between Nationalism and Justice
Article 370 of the Indian Constitution has had a checkered history. It was introduced by the constituent assembly to provide for special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir with due regards to the extraordinary circumstance under which the state acceded to the Indian Union following independence. It was based on the mutual understanding arrived between Jawaharlal Nehru and Sheikh Abdulla in crafting a unique ‘post-colonial nationalism’ grounded upon socialistic principles to establish ‘social justice’ in the traditional inegalitarian Kashmiri society. It can also be regarded as a dream project of Nehru in crafting a distinctive model of Indian Nationalism rooted in secularism to counter the ‘Two Nation Theory’ propagated by Pakistan and secure justice to its vast populace of religious minorities. Thus we can see how in the post-independence era there was a clear convergence between nationalism and justice in the Kashmiri context.
Even in modern times with the abrogation of Article 370 on the 5th of August 2019, the underlying rationale stated by the Government of India was its intention to uphold justice through strengthening nationalism, by dismantling the patronizing regime that has come in way of realizing both. They feel that the existence of a special status provision creates a psychological divide among its people obstructing the process of national integration. The Indian nationalists claim that Kashmiri nationalism is nothing but an ‘invented tradition’ (as coined by Eric Hobsbawm) by the political elites to bolster their power by ‘misguiding’ the youth into ‘anti-national’ activities. The right-wing party in power at the center also seeks to promote territorial nationalism by doing away with ‘two constitutions, two prime ministers and two flags in one nation’ as famously remarked by the Hindutva ideologue Shyama Prasad Mukherjee.
According to the government claims, abrogation of Article 370 seeks to uphold justice to the Kashmiri populace by undoing decades of ‘historical injustice’ brought about by isolating the valley from developments happening in the rest of the mainland. The removal of Article 35-A could pave way for greater economic activities in the region, thus promoting overall peace and prosperity to its people. Through this act, the government also intends to promote social justice to the marginalized sections like women, Dalits, and tribals by extending the constitutional protections available elsewhere in the country. The abrogation of Article 370 and the subsequent bifurcation of the state of J&K addresses the long-standing demands of people in the Jammu and Ladakh region for autonomy from the so-called ‘Kashmiri imperialism’ and the call for a greater association with the Union of India instead. Furthermore, in a limited sense, the act can also be seen in terms of execution of ‘retributive justice’ to address the decades-long peril of insurgency and terrorism, by enabling to implementation of effective security measures to contain the endless blood and tears.
Undermining of Justice for the sake of Nationalism: In a critique
However, according to most critics, the act resulted in a grave violation of the principles of justice for the sake of nationalism. The triumph of Indian nationalism was at the cost of serious undermining of justice to the Kashmiri people in particular. It went against the liberal nationalist principles of ‘national self-determination and the realization of ‘general will’ as put forth by Jean Jacques Rousseau. It was also followed by grave human rights violations, denial of political liberty, and ‘murder of democracy which the liberals hold dear. It even went against the de minims principle of ‘procedural justice’ as laid down by John Rawls by the violation of constitutional procedural norms in bringing about sweeping changes of this magnitude. Similarly, going by the Gandhian maxim of justice of ensuring ‘continuity between means and ends, the actions of the Indian government remains unacceptable irrespective of whatever the so-called ‘noble goals’ it sought to achieve, as in his words “you cannot get a rose through planting a noxious weed” [i].
The action can be seen to be unjust from the perspective of ‘distributive justice’ also. There is visibly an inequitable distribution of primary social goods like justice, liberty, rights, democracy etc. between Kashmir and the rest of the Indian mainland. The Indian nationalism is visibly made to dominate over the Kashmiri nationalism undermining the principle of ‘equality of nations’ as famously remarked by Woodrow Wilson[ii]. Similarly, according to the Indo skeptic historians like Alastair Lamb, Kashmir’s accession into the Indian Union was itself founded upon injustice in the first place. The maharaja was coerced, imperial power misinformed and the Kashmiri people misguided to ultimately integrate the Muslim majority province by fair means or foul, going against the very logic of partition[iii]. Ever since then it has been a tale of diluted provisions and broken promises, with the recent abrogation of Article 370 altogether being the final nail in the coffin. This as per Kantian ethics is unjust as the duty to keep promises is a categorical imperative[iv].
This phenomenal triumph of nationalism over justice has negative impacts on nationalism itself. It points to the gradual degradation of Indian nationalism towards a more majoritarian model leading to the exclusion of India’s vast 200 million minorities. Similarly, it undermines the very principles upon which Indian nationalism is rooted upon by going against the sacrosanct values inscribed in the Indian Constitution. Furthermore, it is argued “the government’s Kashmir move exposes the fragility of India’s federalism”, which can potentially threaten the process of nation-building by reopening the old fault lines in J&K, South India, and North East[v]. Similarly, according to Rajeev Bhargava, the excessive tilt towards nationalism threatens to undo the long-standing consensus on a mutual compromise between nationalism and sub-nationalism that has led to the success of the ‘state nation model in India[vi]. The actions of the Indian government also go against the spirit of internationalism by undermining the promises made at the United Nations for a mutual and peaceful resolution of the conflict.
Undermining of Justice for the sake of Nationalism: In support
For all this while, we had been building upon the premise that “justice is an inviolable virtue” as held by the famous political philosopher John Rawls[vii]. However, it need not always be so. In the words of Thomas Hobbes, “there is no such thing as justice or injustice in the state of nature”[viii]. He believed that justice is merely an artificial construct conceptualized by human beings as a product of a ‘social contract’ to enable the proper functioning of society. Naturalists like Charles Darwin went a step further by showing how the natural order is inherently unjust when he provided his theory of ‘survival of the fittest.
Realist thinkers like Machiavelli took the idea to a new height in the political sphere when he separated politics from ethics and claimed that in politics “ends justify means”. He provided a great emphasis on nationalism and held that statesman must not sacrifice national interest for the sake of their personal values. Justice might not always be a virtue in statecraft and the state could be forced in certain circumstances to act against justice for the sake of its national interest. This can be seen from the examples of military action by Indian security forces to neutralize the internal security threats in J&K, North East, and LWE affected areas. On a broader scale, it can even be said that brief injustices committed in the short run in the name of nationalism could lead to the realization of larger justice in the long run. The complete integration of the Sikh community within the framework of Indian nationalism post the neutralization of the Khalistan secessionist movement in the 1980s is a testimony to the same.
Similarly in the international sphere, national interest is often said to be the ‘raison d’etat’ of international politics[ix]. The realist scholars advocate for ‘realpolitik’ statecraft, by pursuing policies purely based on one’s national interest rather than burdened by any sense of justice or moral compulsions. India is situated in one of the most hotly contested regions in the world, with active hostility and live border disputes at multiple sectors along its long frontier. The recent move in J&K is to be seen in this context of re-asserting its territorial integrity and furthering its sovereignty, by providing the central government unquestioned authority over the region through the former state’s demoted status as a union territory. Even though it might visibly undermine the principles of justice to the Kashmiri populace, some argue that it is a ‘small price to pay for upholding the larger national interest.
Undermining of Nationalism for the sake of Justice: In a critique
Now let us look at another side of the coin. The first and foremost challenge to the realization of the ideal of promoting justice at the cost of nationalism is its practicality. In recent times, there is a general trend of tilt towards a more conservative model of nationalism the world over, which lacks commitment to the liberal principles of ‘national self- determination’ and human rights. In the Indian context, this is represented by the phenomenal rise of conservative right as represented by the Hindutva ideology, which Suhas Palshikar calls the ‘BJP system’[x]. Similarly, there is an increasing reference to ‘mythical nationalism’ that considers Kashmir an integral part of the Indian mythology, as represented by the 12th century Sanskrit work ‘Rajatarangini by Kalhana’. There is also a greater sense of chauvinistic and jingoistic nationalism associated with the militaristic policies in Kashmir of late that negates any scope for negotiation or compromise for the sake of justice.
Equally challenging is the question of its desirability. Liberal nationalists are often criticized for their naive conception of nations as quantitative communities living in a discrete geographical area, and the utopia that states can be made to superimpose over the nations to create nation-states [xi]. The practical form of this idea will result in balkanization and ethnic cleansing as seen from the case of post-cold war disintegration of Yugoslavia. Similarly, as a natural corollary of the previous example regarding the neutralization of Khalistan secessionism, sometimes adhering to the principles of justice at the cost of nationalism could lead to greater injustices in the long run. The Nehruvian ‘just’ policies of going to the United Nations in 1948 for a ceasefire with Pakistan and the idealistic Hindi- Chini Bhai- Bhai approach with China is still being criticized for several generations of injustice that it has brought about for the sub-continent.
Similarly on a hypothetical level, even if we give fruition to the idea of the establishment of a Kashmiri nation-state to uphold the Kashmiri sense of justice and Kashmiri nationalism at the cost of Indian nationalism, it still has associated challenges. First of all, ever since the 1990s, the idea of Kashmiri nationalism based on ethnic identity has been hijacked by an ever narrow version of Islamic nationalism based on religious identity, which has led to a great travesty of justice as seen during the exodus of Kashmiri Pundits from the valley. Similarly, multiple fault lines existing along ethnoreligious lines beneath the dominant narrative could re-emerge as soon as sovereignty is introduced. The ethnic divide exists between Kashmiris (in the Indian side of Kashmir), Punjabis (in Pak Occupied Kashmir), Shinas and Baltis (in Gilgit- Baltistan), which is further complicated by the religious divide between Sunnis and Shia communities in the region.
Kashmir is located at a geostrategic hotspot of world politics with great power rivalries that could turn it into another Afghanistan of South Asia, severely undermining peace and prosperity in the region. Furthermore, Kashmir is still very much integral to the idea of Pakistani nationalism founded upon the Islamic identity in South Asia, and it has time and again unapologetically expressed its ambitious lust over the territory. This could potentially leave the newly independent Kashmiri state at mercy of Pakistani expansionism and Punjabi militaristic imperialism, further undermining the principle of justice to its people.
Fig: Territorial map of J&K (Source: mapsofindia)
Reconciliation between Nationalism and Justice
As we can see, nationalism is identified as the ‘raison d’etat’ of modern nation-states, and justice is considered an inviolable virtue in social architecture, Therefore, it is essential that mutual contradictions between the two be resolved and the values be made to converge to ensure a healthy state of affairs. First of all, the mutual interdependency between the two values has to be recognized. Nationalism without justice will in turn negatively impact the nationalism itself as seen from the case of the Bangladesh Liberation War (1971), Srilankan Civil War, and Rwanda Genocide (2011). At the same time, a narrow sense of justice without a broad sense of nationalism will, in turn, lead to greater injustices in the long run as seen from the disintegration of Yugoslavia and Central Asian republics.
According to the value pluralists, “values are incommensurable and we cannot establish a hierarchy of values”[xii]. Therefore what is needed is a mutual compromise between the values of nationalism and justice to ensure its peaceful co-existence. The deontological conception of justice as an inviolable virtue as laid down by Immanuel Kant and John Rawls may often be found to be ill-suited to deal with the challenges arising from real-world of statecraft and international politics. Therefore a more toned-down version of justice as ‘enlightened self-interest’ as given by Alexis de Tocqueville[xiii]and Adam Smith[xiv] may be adhered to. As per this perspective, justice is to be followed not merely because it is a categorical principle, but also because it has a ‘utility in furthering the cause of nationalism. Similarly, on the other hand, there is a need to promote a much more toned-down version of nationalism similar to the likes of liberal nationalism, which provides due regard to the principles of justice. Other conceptions of nationalism like the conservative or expansionary models negate the principles of justice altogether and are not healthy to nationalism itself in the long run.
Policy Recommendation
Now coming to the case of Kashmir, the recent abrogation of Article 370 in the name of Indian nationalism almost certainly might have led to a travesty of justice to its Kashmiri populace. However, it remains a fact that it has become the new reality, and seeing from the response of the public, political parties, judiciary, and other global powers, it will probably remain so for the foreseeable future. Similarly, with the development of superior armed forces on its external front and the strengthening of internal security apparatus on its internal front, India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity will be ever strongly preserved. This practically negates any possibility for the realization of the Kashmiri dream of independence and nationhood altogether. Thus it can be argued that the structural constraints operating in the real world of international politics hinder the satisfactory realization of both the values of justice and nationalism, much to everyone’s disappointment.
Under such a circumstance it is only rational for the two sides to come to the negotiating table, compromise, balance their competing claims, and arrive at a more peaceful solution to the long-standing conflict that has been malice to the entire region since day zero of independence in 1947. The Kashmiris ought to give up their arms, shed violence as a strategy, and engage in legitimate political processes within the framework of the Indian Constitution. It has to recognize the sinister plans behind Pakistan’s seemingly benevolent support for the ‘Kashmiri cause’, and resist its territory from being used for the conduct of cross-border terrorism and other ‘anti-national activities in the valley.
New Delhi on its part must reaffirm its commitment to justice, democracy, human rights, and political liberty in the state of J&K and win the trust of its people. It must take steps to demilitarize the region, redress the excesses perpetrated by security forces, and re-institutionalize the democratic processes which were dismantled of late. The center must also work out possibilities to restore its statehood at the earliest, and extend special provisions of the likes of Article 371 as done in most North-Eastern states to preserve its unique socio-cultural-religious status, protect traditional land rights, and prevent demographic changes in the valley.
It needs to be reflected upon that the Indian constitution and democracy provide adequate space for both the national and sub-national identities to peacefully co-exist and prosper together. Therefore, India’s approach to the Kashmir problem must be guided by our former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s mantra of “Insaniyat (Humanism), Jamhooriyat (Democracy) and Kashmiriyat (Kashmir’s age-old legacy of Hindu-Muslim amity)”[xv]. This is the only way forward for us to balance the competing claims of the values of nationalism and justice, and holistically promote them together at the same time.
| Table 1: Types of Nationalism |
Meaning |
| Political nationalism | Form of nationalism that views nation essentially as a political entity bounded together by shared sense of citizenship and civic loyalties. First propounded by Jean Jacques Rousseau, often regarded as the father of modern nationalism. |
| Cultural nationalism | Form of nationalism that views nation essentially as an ethnic or cultural entity bounded together by shared sense of ethnicity and culture. First propounded by Johann Gottfried Herder, often regarded as the father of cultural nationalism. |
| Liberal nationalism | Form of nationalism that gives great emphasis to the principles of national self- determination, internationalism and human rights. |
| Conservative nationalism | Form of nationalism that gives great emphasis to patriotism, national unity, social cohesion and public order. |
| Territorial nationalism | Form of nationalism which believes all the inhabitants of a particular territory have a common national identity. |
| Expansionary nationalism | Form of nationalism that combines aggressive patriotic sentiments with superior national self-consciousness to expand its territorial domination by militaristic means. |
| Mythical nationalism | Form of nationalism which raises the nation to the status of divinity with the use of national myths. |
| Chauvinism | Irrational belief in the superiority and dominance of one’s own group or people. Derived from the name of Nicolas Chauvin, a French soldier noted for his fanatical devotion to Napoleon and the cause of France. |
| Jingoism | A mood of public enthusiasm and celebration provoked by military expansion or imperial conquest. |
| Ethnic nationalism | Form of nationalism woven around shared ethnic origins like race, tribe, religion, linguistic and cultural identities. |
| Religious nationalism | Form of nationalism woven particularly around shared religious identities like Hindu nationalism, Islamic nationalism etc. |
| Post-colonial nationalism | Form of nationalism seen in post-colonial societies as a product of national movement during the independence struggle. |
| Sub-nationalism | Form of nationalism which seeks to uphold the interest of a particular regional community within the country. |
| Internationalism | A feeling of belonging that is extra-national in nature and which seeks to bring about a global community cutting across national lines. |
| Table 2:
Conceptions of Justice |
Meaning |
| Procedural justice | Form of justice that emphasis upon the fairness in procedure of any action irrespective of its outcome. It is primarily advocated by the liberals. |
| Substantive justice | Form of justice that emphasis upon the fairness in outcome of any action. It is primarily advocated by the Marxists. |
| Distributive justice | Form of justice that emphasis upon the fairness in distribution of resources and primary social goods. |
| Social justice | Form of justice that emphasis upon establishment of socio-economic justice at the societal level to overcome existing social exploitation and economic deprivations |
| Deontological ethics | Theory of ethics which evaluates the morality of an action based on the rightness or wrongness of action itself rather than based on its consequence. It was advocated by philosophers like Immanuel Kant. |
| Teleological ethics | Theory of ethics which evaluates the morality of an action based on the rightness or wrongness of its consequence. It is also called consequentialism and was advocated by thinkers like Jeremy Bentham. |
| Utilitarian ethics | Theory of ethics which determines the morality of an action based on its utility and the ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’ which it brings. It was propounded by Jeremy Bentham. |
| Retributive justice | Theory of justice which advocates for a severity of punishment proportional to the crime committed. |
[i] Gandhi, M. K. Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1909.
[ii] Address of the President of the United States. Performed by Woodrow Wilson. US Senate, Washington DC. January 22, 1917
[iii] Lamb, Alastair. Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy 1846-1990. Roxford Books, 1991.
[iv] Kant, Immanuel. “Doctrine of Right.” In The Metaphysics of Morals. 1797.
[v] Tillin, Louise. “The fragility of India’s federalism.” The Hindu, August 8, 2019.
[vi] Bhargava, Rajeev. “Nationalism and the crisis of federalism.” The Hindu, September 17, 2020.
[vii] Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971.
[viii] Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil. 1651.
[ix] Morgenthau, Hans. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1948.
[x] Palshikar, Suhas. “India’s Second Dominant Party System.” Economic and Political Weekly 52, no. 11 (March 2017).
[xi] Heywood, Andrew. “Nations and Nationalism.” In Politics, by Andrew Heywood. New York: Palgrave Foundation, 2007.
[xii] Berlin, Isaiah. Two Concepts of Liberty. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958.
[xiii] Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. London: Saunders and Otley, 1835.
[xiv] Smith, Adam. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. London: A. Millar, 1759.
[xv] Vajpayee, Atal Bihari. “Statement by Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee in Lok Sabha on his two day visit to Jammu & Kashmir.” Ministry of External Affairs, Media Centre, April 2003.