In the last decade, the debate over nationalism and who is a nationalist has made way into mainstream discourses in the country, observes Manu Shrivastava with the Covid sharply exposing the crevasse. She points out how it also reflects in the way Nationalism is used by media to selectively promote or support its interests.
Nationalism is defined as ‘identification with one’s own nation-state and supporting its interests.’ Nationalism is an idea and movement that holds that the nation should be congruent with the state. As a movement, nationalism tends to promote the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation’s sovereignty over its homeland. Nationalism is a brand in itself, conveniently used and misused, by entities, within the nation, for personal or political gains.
In most countries, and particularly in India, Nationalism was a common factor that united the country in her freedom struggle against a ‘foreign’ power. Before Independence, India was an assortment of princely states and smaller kingdoms of the Indian subcontinent. It was in the 19th century when modern nationalism – the concept of India as a nation – took prominence and led India to the First War of Indian Independence in 1857 and then the freedom struggle under Mahatma Gandhi leading to India’s Independence on 15 August 1947. Since then, however, nationalism has been reduced to jingoism in most quarters and, often, misused by individuals, politicians, groups, political parties even the media to further their agenda and interests.
Nationalism interpreted conveniently
In the last decade, the debate over nationalism and who was a nationalist has made way into mainstream discourses in the country. The divide over ideologies, beliefs has now become a divide between one’s ideas of nationalism. And, each such group conveniently interprets and defines nationalism to suit its vested interests.
So, most recently, during India’s tackling of the Covid-19 pandemic and the vaccination drive, the divide was more than evident. The Covid-19 pandemic has been one of the worst public health crises that the world has witnessed in recent history. India, contrary to claims made by overwhelming negative coverage in foreign media, tackled the Covid-19 crisis in the best way possible. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), in India, from 3 January 2020 to 13 July 2021, there have been 30,907,282 confirmed cases of Covid-19 with 4,10,784 deaths. And, as of 5 July 2021, a total of 3,57,553,612 vaccine doses have been administered.
On the other hand, in a quick comparison, in the United States of America, from 3 January 2020 to 13 July 2021, there have been 33,518,946 confirmed cases of Covid-19 with 6,01,980 deaths. As of 8 July 2021, a total of 3,34,282,915 vaccine doses have been administered.
Two sides of Covid-19 crisis management
So, even as India fared much better than most advanced nations in the world in terms of Covid-crisis management, there were political groups and factions within India, who as representatives of their followers, constantly criticised Covid-management measures and guidelines. “It’s very simple; People, even leaders, view things from the prism of their personal bias. So, the same set of rules will be perceived as in favour of the nation by one group and as hurting the nation by others,” says Hyderabad-based policy analyst Kavitha Naidu. The vaccination drive, particularly, saw extreme reactions and views from opposing sides in the country. Not just political parties, even media, civil society and individuals took sides when they accepted or rejected the country’s vaccination policy.
India is the second most populous country in the world. On 22 June 2021, the day India’s revised vaccination policy came into effect, there were a record 85 lakh doses administered till midnight – almost double the previous record high of 43 lakh doses on 5 April 2021. Compare it with the entire population of New Zealand that stands at barely 50 lakh.
“Even the most obvious achievements and facts are often seen by groups through the prism of their idea of nationalism which is tainted with personal bias and vested interests,” notes Kavitha. “So, even as India was vaccinating millions of citizens every day, making records of sorts alongside, there was one lobby lauding the work and another one that was seeing it as a futile effort in controlling the infection and wanted the government to focus on other areas such as improving the health infrastructure, etc. – both sides talking in the interest of ‘their’ people.”
Media’s selective portrayal of nationalism
Media, just like politically-motivated individuals, exercises its own brand of nationalism. It’s no secret that media entities have been selective in their reportage and publication of what ‘they’ feel is right and ‘they’ feel must be reported. Nationalism, too, is used by media – print, broadcast and online – selectively to promote or support its interests, not necessarily of the nation at large or in public interest.
Today, in India, there are a set of publications that feel everything the present government does is anti-national and divisive. Publications such as The Print, The Wire, The Quint, Scroll, etc. have vociferously opposed Modi government’s policies, decisions and initiatives citing them as divisive, majoritarian and undermining the interest of the nation.On the other hand, there are entities such as Swarajya Magazine, OpIndia, etc., that support the present government’s policies, in toto.
“Any development that is of national consequence has now become a catalyst for divided opinion…among political leadership, the media and the masses. It’s as if there can be no consensus on any issue now. Media too is selective in its reportage and interpretation of facts,” rues Mumbai-based academician Nandita Singh.
It’s democratically and legally fine for the media to be biased but problems arise when the masses take this ‘selective news’ as facts and form an opinion. It’s important for people to realise and understand that media can be and often is biased owing to personal biases, to retain financial or political patronage, etc.
Instances of selective portrayal
The coverage of India’s management of the Covid-19 crisis is the latest in a series of national issues that have witnessed selective portrayal by the media and in ‘national interest.’
Whether it’s the coverage of the reach of India’s vaccination programme, the success of the demonetisation drive, the Ayodhya verdict, the ban on illegal beef sale or the Kashmir issue vis-à-vis Article 370, it was the approach adopted by the media – skewed in its opinionated views and bias in reportage – that exposed its slant and concurrent take on nationalism.
That the abrogation of Article 370 and the manner in which it was done, could be viewed as a ‘nationalist’s take’ on the Kashmir issue that was ‘being botched up by the Centre’. Also, the aspect of demonetisation or the sudden lockdown during the first wave of Covid, in India, when perceived against the backdrop of travails faced by the masses could be taken to be a nationalist view.
In sharp contrast, all attempts to oppose the first call for lockdown or refusal to join in the thali-clanging exercise called by the Prime Minister were perceived as oppositions to the call for a nationalist Prime Minister. So, nationalism is a rather subjective issue and politically-motivated media entities are known to stir a hornet’s nest each time while, at all times, continuing to bay for their own brand of ‘nationalism’.
And now, more recently, the Uttar Pradesh Population Control Bill plugged to be a move in the direction of Uniform Civil Code is perceived as an affront to an all-inclusive nationalism that is seen as “pandering to the whim of all and sundry.”