Nationalism Is Built by Institutions, Not Weaponized Against Opponents

 

Nationalism Is Built by Institutions, Not Weaponized Against Opponents

Hindi Version: https://rakeshinsightfulgaze.blogspot.com/2026/02/blog-post_15.html

India’s nationhood was not created through slogans. It was built through integration, institution-building, and constitutional accountability. After Independence, India was divided into provinces and more than 500 princely states. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel brought those territories into the Union through negotiation and decisive action. Jawaharlal Nehru laid the foundation for parliamentary democracy, scientific institutions, and long-term economic planning. At the heart of it all was Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, who drafted a Constitution that guaranteed fundamental rights, separation of powers, and independent institutions.

 

These leaders argued fiercely in Parliament. They faced opposition, criticism, and political setbacks. But they did not routinely brand dissenters as anti-national. They understood that disagreement was not a threat to the nation. It was part of democracy. Indira Gandhi’s era remains complex and debated. Yet even her major policy decisions, such as bank nationalization and the abolition of privy purses, were framed as structural reforms aimed at reshaping economic and political power. When India faced external pressure in 1971, her government stood firm. Whether one agrees with every aspect of her tenure or not, nationalism during that period was expressed through decisive policy, not daily political labeling.

 

The contrast with today’s political climate is sharp. The Modi government frequently invokes nationalism as a central political message. Critics of government policy are often described as weakening the nation. Opposition leaders questioning trade agreements, economic data, or internal security decisions have at times been portrayed as acting against national interest. Yet nationalism cannot be defined by branding opponents anti-national. It must be judged by governance.

 

Recently, after entering into a significant trade understanding with the United States, the Prime Minister was absent from Parliament during questioning by the opposition. Parliament is the constitutional arena where executive power is meant to answer for its decisions. Avoiding direct engagement weakens democratic accountability.

 

At the same time, BJP leaders publicly dismissed opposition claims as lies. But when Rahul Gandhi appeared before the press to challenge those claims directly, several leaders who had been vocal stepped away rather than defend their statements in an open exchange. If a government’s position is strong, it should withstand scrutiny.

 

The deeper issue is institutional integrity. The Constitution designed independent pillars: the Election Commission to ensure free and fair elections, the judiciary to act as constitutional guardian, and a neutral civil service to administer policy without partisan bias. Concerns about the weakening or politicization of these institutions undermine claims of strong nationalism. True nationalism strengthens referees. It protects courts from pressure. It respects parliamentary debate. It does not treat oversight as hostility.

 

Hypocrisy emerges when a government speaks constantly of patriotism while avoiding accountability. It emerges when dissent is labeled anti-national, yet critical institutions appear strained. It emerges as slogans grow louder as institutional independence weakens. India’s founders built a nation by binding diverse regions into a constitutional republic. They relied on institutions, not identity politics, to hold it together.

 

Nationalism is not proven by repetition. It is proven by conduct. If leaders truly stand for the nation, they must stand before Parliament, defend their decisions openly, and protect the institutions that outlast them. Anything less is not strength. It is performance.