Is nationalism a religion?
A psychological approach towards analyzing nationalism.
There has been great deal of transition from the nationalistic movement that prevailed during the struggle for independence in the pre-colonial times to what we are witnessing right now.
At this juncture it is important for us to define the terms nation, nationalism and nationalistic. “A nation is an imagined political community — and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign”, in the words of Bendict Anderson. The term nationalism, drawing from Merriam Webster, can be defined as “ loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially, a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups”. Based on the definitions discussed we can understand that a nationalist is someone who with no room for doubts supports his nation and its acts no matter what.
While the essence of a nation has existed even before colonization, the term nation-state (where state means to have organized political unit that is fairly permanent) is relatively new. The idea of national self determination grew post de-colonization especially after 1945.
One may be tempted to ask who then is a patriot. A patriot is someone who believes in patriotism which may resemble nationalism in the present context. However, the vital point to note is that while it emphasizes strong feelings for one’s own country, it does not implicate any superiority viewpoint. According to Sydney J Harris, an American journalist, “ The Difference Between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does , and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does ; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility while the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to a war”.
The article now proceeds to discuss why nationalism can be seen similar to any religion. Here the article borrows theories from psychology.
Psychology of religion; attachment and identity
Nationalism, in today’s context can be civic, ethnic or a combination of the two. Joshua Searle-White in his book The Psychology of Nationalism states nationalists “carry strong attitudes and beliefs about their own people and about others, who feel their attachment to their nation passionately, and who even, at times, act with great cruelty against their enemies.” Nationalistic sentiments thus can be thought to stem from two main points: attachment and identity. On a similar note, religion can be seen as powerful tool that people resort to for identity. Religiosity offers marked cognitive and emotional value. Thus, providing identity and attachment.
Why nationalism as a religion?
At this point, it is important to know that although religious extremism and terrorism on religious basis can seem overlapping or synonymous, they are significantly different. The article leaves it for future analysis, since it lies outside the scope of the discussion here. We take the matters of religious extremism for the benefit of analysis.
Buddhist violence in Sri Lanka and India-Pakistan divide are some examples of extremism on the lines of religion. While Pakistan declaring itself as a Muslim nation promulgated belief in religion as a major factor for unification, India, calling herself a secular country had to find replacement beyond plain patriotism to unify her population who were and continue to be divided on lines of race, religion, caste and creed. Most difficult to deal with amongst the divisions have been on religious and linguistic lines.
To tackle this just as in any other country like the US, India had to resort to a new form of nationalism to unite people, despite its population sharing the same history comparatively. India, with this regard has projected the nation as above everything and has called anyone expressing their opinions against her action has anti-national or Desh Droghi. At this point I would like the readers to ponder upon why our government officials restrict themselves from making healthy criticisms against the government or India. This can be understood as a sincere approach to justify all acts including that of violence inside or outside the nation as using the sentiment of nationalism just as religion has been used by perpetrators of violence worldwide.
While India till date struggles to unite its population on the basis of nationalism alone, Pakistan could not retain Bangladesh despite its ‘one religion’ stand. To sum up, the article states that unlike patriotism or nationalism that triggered the fight for freedom, nationalism today attempts to replace religion that has a history much beyond the former. Note that neither religion nor nationalism is complete replacements of each other. Quoting British political scientist Frank Wright, an expert on Ireland, “Nationalisms are not merely ‘like’ religions — they are religions.”
