The Nation of Bhārata
Bhārata was not born in 1947; only her current political and constitutional nature was. She existed long before that, long before the Britishers colonised her, long before the west established trade links with her, long before they saw her as a single entity called India, long before she was referenced as Bhārata by various then global travellers, and long before she was referenced in Bhāratīya literatures1.
Often the argument that Bhārata is not a nation but a union of states come up in political discourses. This argument is stupid because it compares apples to oranges. The union of states is a political structure of Bhārata, formed because of the political circumstances of princely states, while the idea of nation is an abstract conscious dimension of her citizens, rooting from some ethno-cultural similarities. It is also wrong to consider the princely states as proof of non existence of a conscious nation because they were not demarcated on the basis of being a different nation, but on the basis territorial control achieved by their military force.
A question often asked is whether the date when Bhārata as a nation was formed can the ascertained. We certainly cannot. But this inability is not proof for the non existence of Bhārata as a nation, much like the inability to ascertain the date when Indian ocean was formed isn't proof for the non existence of Indian ocean. One cannot ascertain the date of birth of your great great great great grandmother. And this should not mean that the she didn't exist, because if she didn't, you didn't either.
In fact, a state (country) may exist from a particular date because it is a tangible entity. But a nation is an abstract identity of a citizen — something that isn't physical or tangible — because of which, it cannot have a particular date of formation. A nation is formed slowly through many generations identifying a cultural identity for themselves. The existence of Bhārata as a nation, must be judged only by the existence of such an identity.
Now, given my limited knowledge in history, I cannot give solid irrefutable evidences for the perception of Bhārata as a nation in the past, especially given the political nature of princely states. But I can certainly posit that Bhārata can be considered a nation today on the account of cultural identity. Her diversity in ethno-cultural elements such as languages, culture, beliefs and looks has similarities that make her culturally distinct from a global perspective. Although the languages are different, they sound similar, have more consonants and vowels in common than not, share vocabularies and their root words too. Although the geometry of visual designs are different, yet they are similar. Although the physical characteristics of people are different, most Bhāratīyar share the same characteristics (except for the North easterners, Mughal descendants and certain such ethnic groups, which is understandable). Although the cuisines are different, there is some uniformity in them such as spices, cooking methods and utensils. Although clothings are different, yet they are similar when international clothings are contrasted with.
For these reasons, the idea of Bhāratīya culture is tenable, and therefore it is reasonable to consider Bhārata as a nation with an ethno-cultural identity, even if history didn't see it so.
We, Bhāratiyars, are a civilisation. One of the arguments against such cultural and ethnic tribalism is that all humans migrated from the African continent during the initial years of human evolution, and therefore, any idea of distinctiveness is not logical. This argument is flawed. Evolving from the African continent and then migrating to the rest of the world does not diminish or void the distinct cultural identities that each ethnic tribe have cultivated over thousands of years since this migration. Nor does it mean to renounce those elements that have been with us this far. So long as the distinctiveness exists among the ethnic groups, cultural and ethnic tribalism is tenable.
When we take culture into context, the past becomes relevant. Bhārata has a past which is invoked in two contrasting views politically. One view is filled with indignation and mockery at the past; while the other view wallows in its glorious elements.
No country, ethnicity or society must focus on their present and future by ignoring their past, because past is a part of one's identity and therefore culturally and sociologically relevant to both the present and the future. Nor must we live in its shadows, failing to use it as an inspiration or as a reference to excel. The past must be studied and its sensible aspects must be restored and improved; but the non-nonsensical aspects discarded.
So, before you dismiss something as boring or irrelevant, remember, if you truly want to understand the present or yourself, you must begin in the past. You see, history is not simply the study of the past. It is an explanation of the present.
Paul Hunham in The Holdovers (2023)
That said, people have a varied degree of national sentiment. There are individuals who truly hold national interests near and dear, making personal sacrifices for it, while there are others who lack such intensity for whatever reasons. Then, there are few who have sentiment at all for national interests.
A citizen cannot live as though the nation state does not exist since it is the only sovereign entity in which he or she lives and is protected by. Much of one's social life such as security, economic prosperity, cultural life, etc., is anchored on the sovereign nation state. Thus, a minimum sense of national interest is required. This "sensible sense" can be merely the fulfilment of your civic duties and a concern for the growth of the nation.
Your devotion to the nation must be reasonable. Various manifestations of this devotion do not pass the test of reason; such as the idea of being a proud Bhāratīyan or Bhāratīyī. One can only be proud of his or her contributions or achievements. But no one chose to be born into a specific race or nationality. Nor did he file any request to nature or to God to be born so. We are born in a group out of either natural selection or God's choice as per one's belief. Given this case, a person born into a group cannot be proud of that incident. He can only be happy and thankful, feel blessed or cursed, or sad and querulous about this selection.
Your love for the nation must be honest. It is not hiding or being silent on the negatives and instead showcasing and speaking only about the positives of the nation. Negatives do not cease to exist upon ignoring; they keep growing and cannot be fixed without acknowledging them. Nor can it be reasoned and justified to speak only of the negatives and portray the nation negatively. The two political factions in Bhārata are often guilty of these — one simply wants to wallow on the positives while the other on the negatives. This is fruitless.
Nore must serving national interest mean becoming intellectual slaves to nationalist parties, much like secularism does not mean becoming an intellectual slave to a party advocating secularism. Of course, parties that hold national interest high must be supported, but your allegiance2 must be towards national interest, not to the players of national interest. Else, they will have no one to swerve them back to the right path when they go astray.
Nationalism must not mean making "they do, so why don't we do" argument as a motivation for doing things within the nation. The drive to do something as well as the choice of what things must be done should be purely the need for the particular thing. If not, we end up wasting resources, which is counter productive to the nation, which certainly wasn't the intention.