-By Dr Rakesh Arya (Researcher)
Abstract:
The post-2014 period in Bharat has witnessed a distinct shift in the discourse on nationhood (Rashtratv) and nationalism (Rashtrabhav), marked by the interplay of political, cultural, and ideological transformations. This article examines the evolving contours of these concepts in the socio-political landscape of contemporary India, particularly under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It explores how the redefinition of national identity has been shaped by a resurgence of civilizational consciousness, a renewed emphasis on cultural heritage, and the assertion of strategic autonomy and pragmatism in Indian foreign policy.
The study delves into the role of key state policies, political rhetoric, and mass movements that have reinforced a nationalist framework while simultaneously fostering debates on pluralism, secularism, and inclusivity. It assesses the implications of this shift on governance, societal cohesion, and India’s global positioning. By drawing on political theory and discourse analysis, the article aims to provide a nuanced understanding of the ideological undercurrents shaping contemporary Bharat’s nationalism.
Key Words: nationalism, national identity, primordialism, Guru Golwalkar, V. D. Savarkar, Rashtratv, Rashtrabhav, Sanatana Dharma.
Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis: what is country, nation, state, nation-state, nationalism and patriotism. A country is a geographical entity with defined borders, a government, and sovereignty over its territory. It is a political and administrative unit recognized in international law. Example: India, USA, France. A nation is a group of people (cultural unity) who share common cultural elements like language, history, ethnicity, and traditions. A nation may or may not have its own sovereign territory. Example: The Kurds, the Basques. A state is a political and legal entity with a defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states (sovereignty). Example: China, Germany, Brazil. A nation-state is a political entity where a single nation coincides with the boundaries of a state. It is both a nation (cultural unity) and a state (political sovereignty). Example: Japan, France. Nationalism is an ideological movement that emphasizes loyalty, devotion, and allegiance to one’s nation. It seeks to promote national identity, sometimes advocating self-determination or superiority over other nations. It can be civic nationalism (based on shared values and institutions) or ethnic nationalism (based on common ancestry and culture).
Primordialism: According to this theory nations and nationalism are ancient, fixed, natural characteristics rooted in shared language, ethnicity, culture, ancestry and historical continuity. Prussian philosopher and theologian Johann Herder known for his cultural nationalism. His ideas about nations were based on culture, language and shared history. Herder believed that nations are organic groups with their own unique spirit. He thought that nations create natural borders and that each culture develops from its language and shared history. He believed that nation-states are an expression of cultural differences, not the creator of them. Johann Herder considered key figures who argued for such a cultural definition of nationhood and nationalism.
While Indian nationalist philosopher Aurobindo Ghose in his book The Life Divine (1919) viewed nationalism not just as a political movement but as a spiritual awakening of India. His concept of ‘Sanatana Dharma’ and the idea of ‘Divine India’ shaped the Hindutva discourse and even contemporary Indian socio-political churning. He emphasized spiritual resurgence, self-sacrifice and reliance, cultural and national pride and the revival of ancient Indian traditions. Aurobindo Ghose’s socio-political philosophy reaffirms the idea that India’s destiny was linked to global spiritual evolution.
Indian political philosopher V.D. Savarkar in his book Hindutva: who is a Hindu? (1923) formulate the concept of Hindutva. He distinguished between Hinduism (a religious system) and Hindutva (a cultural and political identity). Savarkar argued that India should be a Hindu Rashtra (Hindu nation) where people who consider India their Pitrabhumi (Fatherland) and Punyabhumi (Holy land) for the core national identity. He was sceptical of Muslim loyalty to India and believed that they should either accept Hindutva as their cultural identity or remain politically marginalised.
Indian philosopher Swami Vivekananda’s views on nationalism were deeply rooted in his vision of a spiritually awakened and socially progressive India. His idea of nationalism was not based on territorial expansion or political dominance but on spiritual unity, self-confidence, and service to humanity. Vivekananda believed that India’s national identity was built on its spiritual and cultural heritage. He saw religion as the backbone of Indian civilization and called for a revival of Hinduism based on its true essence- universalism, tolerance, and selfless service. He urged young Indians to break free from the colonial mindset and rediscover their cultural and philosophical heritage. He considered education the key to national regeneration. He emphasized an education system that combined modern scientific knowledge with India’s traditional wisdom. Unlike narrow religious nationalism, Vivekananda’s nationalism embraced all communities, castes, and sects. He believed that India’s strength lay in its unity in diversity. He called for harmony between different religious communities and criticized caste-based discrimination. He saw the youth as the driving force of nationalism. Vivekananda’s nationalism was not isolationist; he wanted India to engage with the world while preserving its identity. His speech at the Parliament of the World’s Religions (1893) in Chicago presented India as a beacon of spiritual wisdom. Swami Vivekananda’s ideas remain relevant in contemporary India, particularly in the context of cultural revival, education reforms, social equality, and the role of youth in national development.
- S. Golwalkar (1906-1973) was a key ideological figure in the development of Hindu nationalism in India and served as the second Sarsanghchalak of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) from 1940 to 1973. His writings and speeches significantly shaped the discourse on Indian nationalism and national identity, particularly from the perspective of Hindutva.
Guru Golwalkar’s interpretation of nationalism was deeply rooted in cultural and civilizational identity. Golwalkar’s vision of nationalism was based on the idea that India’s national identity was fundamentally Hindu. He argued that the Hindu civilization had provided cultural continuity to India, and thus, the nation’s identity should be built around Hindutva. In We, or Our Nationhood Defined (1939), he emphasized that the Hindu way of life, traditions, and culture should define the Indian nation. Unlike the secular, territorial concept of nationalism promoted by the Indian National Congress, Golwalkar believed that national identity should be based on cultural unity rather than just political boundaries. He rejected the idea that merely living in India made one part of the national fold unless they identified with Hindu culture.
Golwalkar viewed religious minorities, particularly Muslims and Christians, as groups that needed to assimilate into Hindu cultural identity. He saw these communities as potential threats to national unity unless they adopted Hindu cultural values. This idea was controversial and opposed by secular like Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi. In his early writings, Golwalkar appeared to draw from European nationalist movements, particularly the idea of cultural homogeneity as a foundation for a strong nation. His comparisons with Nazi Germany’s emphasis on racial purity were widely criticized, though later interpretations suggested that he refined his views over time. Under his leadership, the RSS expanded significantly and influenced Indian politics by promoting a vision of nationalism centred on Hindu unity. His teachings laid the groundwork for the rise of political Hindutva, influencing later organizations like the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP).
His ideas continue to influence Indian politics, particularly in the debates over secularism, nationalism, and identity. The rise of Hindu nationalism in contemporary India reflects many of Golwalkar’s ideological foundations, though his stance on cultural nationalism remains a point of contention. Scholars and critics debate whether his vision of nationalism was inclusive or exclusionary, especially in the context of India’s diverse religious and cultural landscape.
American anthropologist Clifford Geertz explored nationalism through the lens of culture, ethnicity, and symbolic systems. His views on nationalism can be understood primarily through his work on ‘primordialism’ and ‘the integrative revolution’. Geertz argued that nationalism is deeply tied to primordial attachments, such as language, religion, ethnicity, and historical tradition. Geertz examined nationalism in postcolonial states, especially in Asia and Africa, where new nations had to reconcile ethnic and regional diversity with state-building. Geertz emphasized the role of symbols, rituals, and cultural narratives in shaping national consciousness. He believed that nationalism was not just about political organization but also about creating a shared sense of belonging through historical myths, traditions, and cultural practices. Geertz was sceptical of Western models of nationalism being imposed on post-colonial societies. He argued that each nation had unique cultural and historical trajectories, making nationalism a highly context-specific phenomenon rather than a one-size-fits-all ideology. His work remains relevant for understanding ethnic conflicts, multiculturalism, and the challenges of national integration in diverse societies.
British historical sociologist Anthony D. Smith was a prominent scholar in nationalism studies, known for his contributions to the understanding of nations, nationalism, and national identity. His work bridges modernist and ethno-symbolist perspectives on nations and nationalism. His main concepts are Ethno-Symbolism: Smith challenged purely modernist theories of nationalism (like those of Ernest Gellner and Benedict Anderson) by emphasizing the deep-rooted cultural and historical elements of nations. He argued that nations are not purely modern constructs but have pre-modern ethnic foundations. The concept of ‘Ethnie’: He introduced the idea of ‘Ethnie’ (premodern ethnic communities) as the historical and cultural basis for modern nations. He emphasizes the role of myths, symbols, and traditions in shaping national consciousness. The Ethnic Origins of Nations (1986): in this book he argues that modern nations evolve from earlier ethnic communities rather than being entirely new formations. His work remains foundational in nationalism studies, influencing scholars who examine how historical narratives, cultural memory, and identity shape modern political communities.
Modernisation theory: Modernization theory of nations and nationalism argues that nations and nationalism are products of modernity, emerging primarily due to social, economic, and political transformations such as industrialization, urbanization, literacy, and the rise of centralized states. Nationalism is seen as a relatively recent phenomenon, emerging mainly in the 18th and 19th centuries. This perspective challenges primordialist views.
Social-anthropologist Ernest Gellner argues in his book Nations and Nationalism (1983) nationalism is a modern phenomenon, closely linked to industrialization and the transition from agrarian to industrial societies. Gellner defines nationalism as a political principle that holds that the political and national unit should be congruent. In agrarian societies, people were divided by rigid social hierarchies, localized cultures, and different dialects. Industrialization demanded a mobile, literate, and homogenous workforce with a standardized language and culture to facilitate economic growth and communication. This created the need for a centralized education system that fostered a shared national identity. Pre-modern societies had multiple local cultures (‘low cultures’). Industrial societies required a unified and standardized ‘high culture’ to integrate people into the national economy. The state played a key role in promoting this high culture through education and institutions. Gellner believes nations are socially constructed through historical processes. Gellner argues that nationalism is not just an ideology but a functional requirement of modern industrial society. It helps create the social cohesion necessary for industrial economies to function effectively.
Political scientist and historian Benedict Anderson is known for his seminal work of Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (1983). He argues that nations are ‘imagined political communities’ and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign, because their members, even in the smallest nations, will never know most of their fellow citizens, but they feel a sense of shared identity. Anderson highlights the role of print capitalism (the rise of mass media like newspapers and books) in shaping national consciousness by creating a shared language and discourse. Anderson also examines how nationalism was adapted in the colonial and postcolonial contexts, particularly in Asia and Latin America.
British historian of nationalism Eric Hobsbawm in his book Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality (1990). His approach to nationalism is rooted in historical materialism, viewing nations as modern constructs rather than ancient, natural entities. Hobsbawm argues that nations are not immemorial but are modern phenomena, primarily emerging from the late 18th century onward. He views nationalism as a product of economic, social, and political changes, particularly the Industrial Revolution and capitalist modernization.
He makes a distinction between proto-national identities (such as religious, linguistic, or regional identities) and modern nationalism, which only fully emerges in the 19th century. State-led nationalism (from above) often plays a crucial role in shaping national consciousness. Hobsbawm emphasizes the role of states, elites, and intellectuals in constructing national identities rather than nations arising “naturally” from the people. He sees nationalism as a political project that is often engineered by ruling elites to mobilize populations. Hobsbawm introduced the concept of “invented traditions”, arguing that many national symbols, myths, and customs are artificially created to instil a sense of continuity. These traditions help in legitimizing national identities and binding people to the state. Hobsbawm suggested that globalization and supranational institutions (e.g., European Union, United Nations) were weakening traditional nationalist sentiments.
Modernization theory remains a foundational perspective in understanding nations and nationalism. It highlights how structural changes- industrialization, state-building, and mass communication- have shaped national identities. However, contemporary scholars often integrate modernization theory with other approaches, such as ethno-symbolism and constructivism, to provide a more nuanced view of nationalism’s origins and evolution.
Constructivism and instrumentalism: nations and nationalism are social and political constructs shaped by historical and ideological processes. American sociologist Liah Greenfeld in Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (1992) examines the emergence and spread of nationalism in five societies: US, Russia, UK, France and Germany. She identified three ideal types of nationalism: first, individualistic-civic nationalism, second, collectivistic-civic nationalism (US, UK and France), and third, collectivistic-ethnic (Russia and Germany).
American political scientist Paul Brass in his book Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison (1991) explores the origins of nationalism. Brass argued that nationalism is not an inherent or primordial identity but rather a product of political and social mobilization. He emphasized the role of political elites and institutions in constructing ethnic and national identities to serve political interests. His contributions to the study of nationalism are significant, particularly in how he conceptualized ethnic and national identities as dynamic, socially constructed phenomena rather than fixed categories.
He challenged the idea that ethnic groups are naturally occurring and instead focused on the political and economic conditions that shape identity formation. Brass extensively studied communal violence in India and its connection to nationalism. He argued that nationalist and communal identities are often manipulated by political actors to consolidate power, as seen in his influential work The Production of Hindu-Muslim Violence in Contemporary India (2003). Brass introduced the concept of an “institutionalized riot system”, where political actors actively shape and sustain communal tensions. He analysed how national identity is formed through continuous political contestation rather than historical or cultural continuity.
His theories remain crucial for understanding nationalism in South Asia, particularly in the context of India’s changing political landscape, ethnic conflicts, and identity politics. His instrumentalist approach provides a counterpoint to primordialist perspectives.
Postcolonial and Critical Theories: these perspectives examine nations and nationalism in the context of colonialism, power structures and identity politics.
Indian political scientist Partha Chatterjee known for his work on nationalism and postcolonial studies. In his seminal work The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories (1993), argues that Indian nationalism did not simply imitate Western and Eurocentric models but developed its own distinct form. He critiques Benedict Anderson’s concept of imagined communities by pointing out that nationalism in colonial societies emerged through a negotiation with colonial rule rather than merely replicating European nationalism. Chatterjee differentiates between the inner (spiritual, cultural) and outer (political, economic) domains of nationalism. While colonial powers controlled the outer domain (administration, economy), Indian nationalists sought to protect and assert control over the inner domain (culture, traditions, identity). This distinction helps explain how nationalism in India maintained certain indigenous traditions while simultaneously engaging in modern political struggles.
Post-colonial theorist Homi K. Bhabha offers a critical perspective on nationalism, particularly through his concepts of hybridity, mimicry, ambivalence, and the Third Space. His work challenges traditional, homogeneous notions of nationalism by emphasizing its fluid, contested, and constructed nature. Bhabha views nationalism not as a fixed identity but as a discursive construct- a product of storytelling, myths, and representations. He argues that the nation is ‘written’ and ‘rewritten’ through cultural practices, media, and literature, making it dynamic rather than stable. Nationalism often claims cultural purity, but Bhabha shows how it is actually hybrid, shaped by colonial and postcolonial interactions. The Third Space is where cultural interactions generate new, hybrid identities, challenging dominant nationalist narratives. This concept helps understand postcolonial nationalism, which is often caught between colonial influence and indigenous aspirations. Bhabha’s work is crucial in understanding how nations are imagined and how they negotiate cultural differences. His critique is particularly relevant for postcolonial states like India, where national identity is continuously negotiated through history, politics, and culture. His theories encourage a more inclusive nationalism, acknowledging diversity rather than imposing a singular identity.
Dr B.R. Ambedkar and Indian Nationalism: Ambedkar had a complex and critical perspective on nationalism. Unlike many of his contemporaries in the Indian nationalist movement, Ambedkar viewed nationalism through the lens of social justice, particularly concerning caste oppression. Ambedkar was deeply critical of Hindu nationalism, which he saw as rooted in Brahmanical supremacy and caste hierarchy. He argued that Hindu society lacked a sense of fraternity, which he considered essential for true nationalism. His works, especially Annihilation of Caste, highlight how caste divisions prevented India from developing into a unified nation. Ambedkar believed that nationalism should be inclusive and democratic. He often spoke of the need for Dalits to assert their rights as a separate political community, which led to his advocacy for separate electorates for Dalits in the Poona Pact (1932). He saw caste oppression as a major barrier to national unity and believed that true nationalism could only emerge by eliminating caste discrimination.
Unlike Mahatma Gandhi and others who emphasized cultural or spiritual nationalism, Ambedkar’s vision of nationalism was rooted in constitutionalism and legal equality. As the chief architect of the Indian Constitution, he ensured that India’s nationalism was based on democratic principles, fundamental rights, and social justice. Ambedkar rejected the idea of nationalism based solely on emotional or religious unity. He was wary of majoritarian tendencies and warned that mere political independence would not lead to true nationhood unless accompanied by social and economic justice. His advocacy for reservations and affirmative action was part of his broader nationalist vision that sought to uplift marginalized communities. Ambedkar saw the Indian nation-state as a necessary framework for justice but believed that a true nation had to be built by ensuring the dignity and participation of all its citizens, especially Dalits. His conversion to Buddhism in 1956 was a political statement against the caste-based social order that he saw as antithetical to true nationalism.
Ambedkar’s nationalism was fundamentally different from the dominant narratives of his time. While he supported Indian independence, he insisted that a truly free nation must be built on social justice, equality, and fraternity. His ideas remain relevant in contemporary debates on nationalism, caste, and democracy in India.
B.R. Ambedkar and V.D. Savarkar held sharply contrasting views on Hindutva, Hindu identity, and the Indian nation-state. While both were critical of certain aspects of caste oppression and Muslim politics, their ideological foundations diverged significantly. Savarkar, in his book Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? (1923), defined Hindutva as a cultural and political identity, not just a religious one. He argued that a Hindu is someone who considers India both as their pitribhumi (fatherland) and punyabhumi (holy land), thereby excluding Muslims and Christians from this national identity. Ambedkar, however, rejected this exclusionary definition. In Thoughts on Linguistic States (1955), he criticized Hindutva for being rooted in Brahminical supremacy and for equating Hindu identity with nationalism, which he saw as a majoritarian imposition. Savarkar claimed that caste divisions weakened Hindus and advocated for social unity but did not propose structural changes to dismantle caste. His idea of Hindutva sought to bring all Hindus together under a nationalist framework while keeping the social order intact. Ambedkar, in Annihilation of Caste (1936), explicitly attacked Hinduism for being inherently hierarchical and oppressive. He argued that Hindutva, instead of challenging caste oppression, reinforced Brahminical supremacy under the guise of Hindu unity. Savarkar saw Hindus and Muslims as distinct political entities. He advocated for Hindu political dominance and was a proponent of militarizing Hindus to counter what he saw as Muslim aggression.
Ambedkar, while also critical of certain aspects of Muslim politics, opposed Savarkar’s communal nationalism. In Pakistan or the Partition of India (1940), he noted that Hindu nationalism, as defined by Savarkar, was as much a form of separatism as Muslim nationalism. He argued for a constitutional and democratic framework rather than a religious-nationalist state. Savarkar, though an atheist personally, saw Hindu culture as the basis for Indian nationalism. Ambedkar, on the other hand, rejected the idea of Hindu cultural nationalism. He argued for a secular state with constitutional safeguards for minorities and the oppressed. His conversion to Buddhism in 1956 was a direct rejection of Hinduism and its social order.
Ambedkar’s critique of Savarkar’s Hindutva was fundamentally about inclusion versus exclusion. While Savarkar sought Hindu unity under an ethnic-nationalist framework, Ambedkar saw Hinduism as an oppressive system that needed radical transformation. Ambedkar’s vision was rooted in social justice and constitutional democracy, while Savarkar’s Hindutva was majoritarian and exclusionary.
Dr B.R. Ambedkar had critical perspectives on both Mahatma Gandhi and Sri Aurobindo Ghosh, particularly regarding their views on nationalism and national identity. His critiques were largely shaped by his concerns about caste, social justice, and the nature of Indian nationalism. Ambedkar and Gandhi had significant ideological differences, especially on caste and nationalism. Ambedkar strongly opposed Gandhi’s idea of Varna-based social order, where Gandhi sought to reform caste rather than abolish it. He rejected Gandhi’s advocacy of Harijan upliftment without dismantling caste hierarchy, arguing that such reforms were insufficient and merely reinforced upper-caste dominance. Gandhi’s nationalism was centred on spiritual unity, rural self-sufficiency, and non-violence. Ambedkar, however, saw caste oppression as a fundamental issue and argued that true nationalism could not exist in a society where caste discrimination persisted. He believed that political freedom (swaraj) without social equality would not create a just nation. He considered Gandhi’s methods paternalistic and insufficient. While Gandhi used the term Harijan (Children of God), Ambedkar saw this as patronizing and preferred a legal and structural approach to ensure Dalit empowerment. This fundamental disagreement led to the Poona Pact of 1932, where Ambedkar had to accept reserved seats instead of separate electorates for Dalits.
Ambedkar did not engage as extensively with Aurobindo as he did with Gandhi, but his views on nationalism contrasted with Aurobindo’s spiritual and cultural nationalism. Aurobindo saw India as a divine entity, where nationalism was a religious and spiritual awakening. Ambedkar, in contrast, argued that nationalism should be based on social and economic justice rather than spirituality. He was skeptical of nationalism rooted in Hindu revivalism, which he believed excluded Dalits and other marginalized groups. Aurobindo envisioned Hinduism as a unifying force for Indian nationalism. Ambedkar, however, saw Hinduism as the root cause of caste oppression and argued that Hindu social order was inherently discriminatory, making true national unity impossible without radical social reform. While Aurobindo sought a synthesis of ancient Hindu traditions and modernity, Ambedkar advocated a break from traditional Hinduism, proposing Buddhism as an alternative for Dalits and a more egalitarian society.
Gandhi’s nationalism, based on moral and spiritual principles, was seen by Ambedkar as inadequate for addressing caste oppression. Aurobindo’s nationalism, rooted in Hindu spirituality, was seen as exclusionary and incompatible with Ambedkar’s vision of an egalitarian India. Ambedkar’s own nationalism was deeply tied to constitutional democracy, social justice, and economic equality, rejecting any notion of nationalism that upheld caste, religious identity, or spiritual essentialism.
Michael Billig’s theory of banal nationalism (1995) argues that nationalism is not just about grand and overt displays but is also reinforced through every day and mundane practices. It is subtly embedded in daily life through symbols, language, rituals, and media, shaping how people think about the nation. Applying this theory to India after 2014, we can see how everyday nationalism has been reinforced by present government.
After 2014, India’s banal nationalism has been strengthened through routine symbols and acts that continuously reinforce national identity. The increased emphasis on displaying the tricolour in public places, schools, and government offices (e.g., the Har Ghar Tiranga campaign). The mandatory playing of the national anthem in cinemas (2016 Supreme Court ruling, later revoked). The widespread use of slogans like “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” “Jai Shriram” and “Jai Hind” in public speeches and media. The push for renaming places to reflect Indian/Hindu heritage (e.g., Allahabad to Prayagraj, Aurangzeb Road to Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Road).
Billig highlights the role of media in reinforcing nationalism unconsciously. In India, news channels and social media constantly highlight national security, border tensions, and military achievements. The mainstream bollywood films have increasingly featured patriotic themes, such as Uri: The Surgical Strike (2019) and Shershaah (2021). The cricket matches against Pakistan are framed as nationalistic events, fostering a sense of collective identity.
Under the BJP government, Hindutva nationalism has been normalized in everyday life. The increased visibility of Hindu festivals and rituals in public spaces. The Ram Temple in Ayodhya (2024) became a nationalist symbol, reinforcing the idea of India as a Hindu nation. The promotion of Hindi as the national language and emphasis on Indian cultural values in education and policymaking.
The Indian military has become a key aspect of banal nationalism like Surgical Strikes (2016) and Balakot Airstrikes (2019) were widely celebrated, reinforcing national pride. The slogan “Modi Hai Toh Mumkin Hai” linked national security achievements to political leadership. The Social media platforms have played a significant role in everyday nationalism: Hashtags like #AtmaNirbharBharat (Self-Reliant India), #VocalForLocal, and #BoycottChina reflect economic nationalism. The rise of “anti-national” discourse- branding critics as “anti-national” or “urban Naxals” has further shaped public discourse. Since 2014, banal nationalism in India has become more pronounced through everyday rituals, state policies, media, religion, and digital spaces. Unlike overt nationalism, these elements subtly reinforce a Hindu majoritarian identity and state-driven patriotism, making it an essential lens to study contemporary Indian politics and society.
American sociologist Rogers Brubaker’s theories on nationalism, particularly his concepts of “nationalism without groups”, “nationalizing states”, and “civic versus ethnic nationalism”, provide useful lenses for analysing India’s political and social landscape after 2014. Brubaker’s concept of the “nationalizing state” refers to a state where the dominant ethnic or cultural group actively promotes its own interests, often through political, legal, and cultural means, sometimes at the expense of minority communities. Since 2014, under the leadership of Narendra Modi and the BJP, India has seen an increased emphasis on Hindutva nationalism, with policies and rhetoric often framing India as a Hindu-majority nation. Policies such as the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019, debates over the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), and the revocation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir reflect nationalizing tendencies aimed at reinforcing a Hindu cultural identity within the Indian polity. The “Othering” of certain groups, particularly Muslims and certain regional minorities, aligns with Brubaker’s idea that a nationalizing state seeks to privilege one group over others.
Brubaker differentiates between civic nationalism, which is inclusive and based on shared political values, and ethnic nationalism, which is exclusive and based on cultural, religious, or ethnic identity. The rise of Hindutva nationalism marks a shift towards a more ethnoreligious definition of Indian identity, moving away from Nehruvian secular and civic nationalism. Campaigns like “Love Jihad”, “Ghar Wapsi”, and “anti-conversion laws” reinforce an ethnic-religious definition of national belonging. The idea of “New India” under Modi is framed as one that prioritizes Hindu civilizational glory, further blurring the lines between civic and ethnic nationalism.
Brubaker challenges the idea that nationalism is always driven by clearly defined ethnic groups; instead, he suggests that nationalism can be a fluid and shifting construct, amplified by discourse, media, and political actors. The use of social media and digital platforms has played a crucial role in shaping nationalist discourse, often through WhatsApp, Twitter, and other digital propaganda tools. Nationalist sentiment is not always tied to a single, rigid group but emerges in response to events- such as border conflicts with China, the Pulwama attack, and the Ayodhya verdict- which mobilize temporary nationalist fervor. The rise of “hyper nationalism” in response to issues like India-Pakistan relations, Bollywood narratives, and cricket suggests that nationalism is often performative and situational, rather than solely rooted in pre-existing social groups.
Brubaker’s framework helps explain how nationalism in India post-2014 has evolved beyond traditional ethnic and civic lines. India exhibits a nationalizing state tendency, a shift from civic to ethnoreligious nationalism, and the rise of fluid, media-driven nationalist mobilization. His theory helps contextualize the changing nature of identity politics, the centralization of power, and the exclusionary tendencies of contemporary Indian nationalism.
Conclusion: The ascendancy of nationhood and nationalism in India after 2014, particularly following the election of the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) under Narendra Modi, has been a defining feature of Indian politics and society. This period has witnessed a resurgence of nationalist discourse, shaped by a combination of political, cultural, economic, and security factors. The BJP, with its ideological roots in Hindutva and cultural nationalism, has emphasized a vision of India centred on Hindu identity, self-reliance, and civilisational pride. Electoral successes in multiple state and national elections have reinforced the party’s nationalist churning, often framed as a revival of India’s lost glory. Slogans such as ‘New India’ and ‘Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas, Sabka Vishwas’ have blended development with nationalism.
The Ram Mandir movement saw its culmination in the construction of the temple in Ayodhya, fulfilling a long-standing demand of Hindutva organisations. Nationalist narratives have increasingly been tied to religious identity, with campaigns promoting yoga, Sanskrit, and Vedic knowledge as symbols of India’s heritage. Controversies around issues like cow protection, ‘Love Jihad’, and religious conversions have been framed within a nationalist discourse.
The Modi government has promoted self-reliance through the “Atmanirbhar Bharat” initiative, encouraging domestic manufacturing and reducing dependency on foreign imports. Calls to boycott Chinese goods, particularly after the Galwan clash in 2020, reinforced economic nationalism.
The handling of cross-border tensions with Pakistan and China, including the Balakot airstrikes (2019) and the Galwan Valley clash (2020), were framed as strong nationalist responses. India’s increasing role in global platforms such as the G20, Quad, Global South and its assertion of multi-alignment, strategic autonomy and pragmatism in the foreign policy reflect a nationalist approach to global politics.
Bollywood has produced films with strong nationalist themes (e.g., Uri: The Surgical Strike, The Kashmir Files, Article 370), reinforcing nationalist sentiment. The increased visibility of nationalism on social media, with widespread use of hashtags like #BharatMataKiJai and #JaiHind.
Efforts to revise history textbooks, emphasizing India’s ancient glory and minimizing Mughal contributions, reflect a nationalist rewriting of history. Figures like Swami Vivekanand, Savarkar, Sardar Patel, and Subhas Chandra Bose have been given greater prominence in national discourse.
The post-2014 period in India has seen a significant transformation in nationalism, where political, economic, and cultural narratives are deeply intertwined. While it has fostered a sense of pride and unity, it has also led to polarization, with debates over inclusivity, secularism, and democratic freedoms. The trajectory of this nationalist ascendancy will continue to shape India’s domestic and foreign policies in the coming years.
References
Anderson, Benedict (1983) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Verso.
Anderson, Benedict (2001) “Western Nationalism and Eastern Nationalism: Is there a Difference that Matters?”, New Left Review, PP: 31-42.
Bhabha, Homi K. (1990) Nation and Narration, Routledge.
Bhabha, Homi K. (1994) The Location of Culture, Routledge.
Billig, Michael (1995) Banal Nationalism, London, Sage.
Brass, Paul R. (1985) Ethnic Groups and the State, Barnes & Noble Books.
Brass, Paul R. (1991) Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison, SAGE Publications.
Brass, Paul R. (1994) The Politics of India Since Independence, Cambridge University Press.
Breuilly, John (1982) Nationalism and the State, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Breuilly, John (2013) The Oxford Handbook of the History of Nationalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brubaker Rogers (2004) Ethnicity Without Groups, Harvard University Press.
Brubaker, Rogers (1992) Citizenship and nationhood in France and Germany, Harvard University Press.
Brubaker, Rogers (1996) Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe, Cambridge University Press.
Chatterjee, Partha (1993) The Nation and its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories, Princeton University Press.
Chatterjee, Partha (2004) The Politics of the Governed: Popular Politics in Most of the World, Columbia University Press.
Gellner, Ernest (1983) Nations and Nationalism, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
Greenfeld, Liah (1992) Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity, Harvard University Press.
Greenfeld, Liah (2016) Globalization of Nationalism: Political Identities around the World, (editor), European Consortium for Political Research, ECPR Press.
Hall, John A. (1998) (ed.) The State of the Nation: Ernest Gellner and the Theory of Nationalism, Cambridge University Press.
Hobsbawm, Eric (1983) The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge University Press.
Hobsbawm, Eric (1991) Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality, Cambridge University Press.
Hobsbawm, Eric (2021) On Nationalism, Little; Brown.
Komireddi, K.S. (2019) Malevolent Republic: A Short History of the New India, C. Hurst & Co.
Ozkirimli, Umut (2017) Theories of Nationalism: A critical Introduction, Bloomsbury Publishing.
Patel, Aakar (2020) Our Hindu Rashtra: What It Is. How We Got Here, Westland Books.
Smith Anthony D. (1999) Myths and Memories of the Nation, Oxford University Press.
Smith, Anthony D. (1986) The Ethnic Origins of Nations, Basil Blackwell.
Smith, Anthony D. (1991) National Identity: Ethnonationalism in Comparative Perspective, University of Nevada Press.
Smith, Anthony D. (1995) Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era, Polity Press.
Smith, Anthony D. (1998) Nationalism and Modernism, Routledge.
Smith, Anthony D. (2004) The Antiquity of Nations, Polity Press.
Smith, Anthony D. (2008) The Cultural Foundations of Nations: Hierarchy, Covenant and Republic, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Smith, Anthony D. (2009) Ethno-symbolism and Nationalism: A Cultural Approach, Routledge.
