Regrettably in recent times, 'othering' amongst our own has been perfected to a fine art.
Politicians have invoked this latent human tendency to polarise and divide societies with strains of ethnocentrism, majoritarianism, or xenophobic aspersions, especially onto the vulnerable minorities. The accompanying 'us-versus-them' narrative hides behind the garb of claimed nationalism, hence the so-called 'others' can instinctively be slammed as 'anti-national'.
In the Indian political context and consciousness, getting labelled as a 'Pakistani' is the lowest slur of 'othering'.
Once the tag of much conviction, facts, and thought – today anybody who seemingly does not agree with the dominant political narrative, runs the sure risk of being called an 'anti-national' or even 'Pakistani', without any restraints or considerations.
Even the vital balance between the security interests of the nation and the fundamental rights of the people have started to shrink dramatically, with dramatic charges of sedition getting suggested in a charged environment, on the basis of democratic and societal disagreements.
In some ways, these increasingly visibilised curbs on liberality, secularity, and diversity have stoked collateral bloodlust in lesser seen places like Manipur or vigilante lynchings in the hinterland of 'cow-belt' India.
The fact that those who light the fire (usually, politicians) with incendiary or unsubstantiated statements go virtually scot-free, empowers and emboldens many to continue playing with fire or even take law onto their own hands. Ultimately, politics of divide and hatemongering serving a deliberate purpose i.e. electoral purpose, hence goes on tellingly unchecked or unrestrained.
What Does This Deplorable 'Othering' Achieve?
Herein, callously calling some as 'Pakistanis' serves two vital and immediate purpose. First, it perpetuates a dangerous and deliberate stereotype that is electorally gratifying.
Secondly, due to the churlishly jingoistic politics getting normalised, it ironically builds muscular credentials for the unhinged politicians who make such outlandish aspersions.
Unsurprisingly, such blanket attributions are invariably reserved for people belonging to certain religiosities who do not compose the majority denomination – so they could be sitting in Shaheen Bagh or the farmers' protests.
Basically, if they do not agree with the views of the dispensation of the day, they are automatically made to be 'deshdrohis' ('anti-nationals'), said to be, 'on the pay rolls of Pakistan or China (new addition)', or plain simple, 'Pakistanis'!
Whereas the true soldier to the nation has a more nuanced view about the 'enemy', as it were. As GK Chesterton said, “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."
Whereas these make-believe soldiers (read, politicians) believe and normalise the exact opposite i.e. they often 'hate' what is behind them, mostly some of their own! The poison unleashed by such tact is tolerated hatemongering and name-calling, as it becomes an acceptable tool of societal divide.
Degradation of the Political Discourse
Recently, a young minister from Maharashtra, who had taken the oath to uphold the unity and integrity of India, joined the chorus of 'Pakistan' when he brazenly referenced Kerala (a political state with the highest literacy in the country) as 'Mini Pakistan'.
The playbook of 'othering' his political rivals was neatly conflated by the 'othering' of a certain religious community (addressing them collectively and shockingly as 'terrorists') by insisting, “All terrorists vote for them. This is the truth; you can verify it. They became MPs by aligning with terrorists”.
The tragedy is not that the comment came from some fuddy-duddy politician of yore, but from a presumably educated (MBA from the UK) activist-politician, with a long and rewarded political lineage. That he was in the same party (till 2019) that he now accused of courting “terrorists”, or that he had earlier raked controversy by tweeting exclusionary rants against certain political leaders (who are ironically his leaders now), says something about fickle youth-icons in politics today.
Not new to inelegant controversies, this was a new low in 'othering' by the said constitutional appointee, and expectedly and sadly, it has gone unpunished.
Counterintuitively, the exclusionary, illiberal, and intolerant idea besetting 'Pakistan' matches exactly the spirit and tenor of the young minister’s diatribe more than anyone else’s.
Perhaps a crash course in history will inform him that the lofty 'Idea of India' (as enshrined by those who actually fought for Independence, including the likes of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Sardar Patel, Bhimrao Ambedkar, among many others) was all for “unity in diversity”.
Whereas the infinitely poorer, intolerant, and suffocating notion of a nation based on a majoritarian religion was inherent in the 'Idea of Pakistan' with its exclusionary underpinning asserting the claim of so-called 'the land of the pure'. In many ways, the intent exemplified by such baseless name-calling of 'Mini Pakistan' proximate the foundational and genealogical ideology that consumes, poisons, and destroys, a Pakistan today.
The legal and constitutional act of defining someone as an 'anti-national' person is not predicated on his or her religion, but by their conduct and action. It should not matter if a wrongdoer is a Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist or a Hindu, as there are enough heroes and villains from each religious faith who have either given their blood for the nation, or had taken its blood – the idea of a superior race or religion is what insufficiently made Pakistan, and not, India.
Similarly, patriotism is not the preserve of any political or ideological party as there are enough examples of heroes and villains on all sides of the partisan divide, and in any case, politicians are hardly the paragons of virtues as many of them readily hop party’s basis their own vested interests or electoral prospects, to take contradictory positions, like this one.
But in oversimplistic and 'manufacture emotions' of the times that be, those from the increasingly slammed minorities who chose to repose faith in the 'Idea of India' (and therefore shunned Pakistan) in the aftermath of Independence, run the ready risk of getting called 'Pakistanis' today, whereas those actually forsook the option of moving to India (belonging to the 'minority' community in Pakistan, but not so in India) are not slammed as 'others', within India.
This is conveniently communal politics of today. Indeed, economic considerations and riots perhaps dissuaded many from crossing over borders even if they felt they wanted to shift to the other side – but that logic works on both sides, not just on one side of the Line of Control.
India deserves better and more progressive narratives from its politicians, especially from young politicians who will continue influencing the future, a lot longer. Seemingly, insinuating the unfounded barb of 'Pakistani' onto each other is far easier than to live up to the responsibilities and duties of constitutional morality, dignity, and grandeur of the 'Idea of India'.
(The author is a Former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)