52 INDIA TODAY AUGUST 19, 2019
of home and family.
Rights cannot survive in a vacuum. They need strong
institutions to protect them. And just like children need com-
mitted parents, individual citizens need a strong nation-state
to protect their rights.
It can be argued that not all parents are caring and protec-
tive. But most parents are. And therefore, we would agree that a
strong family is good for a child. Similarly, there are authoritar-
ian nation-states that oppress their citizens. But data indicates
clearly that democratic nation-states, on average, protect the
individual rights of citizens. Institutions with the power, tools
and motivation (driven by citizen votes and democratic protests)
to guarantee individual rights are the basis for liberalism. A
modern democratic nation-state is the best example available
today of a political organisation that protects individual human
rights, as compared to any other form of government in history.
As Winston Churchill pithily remarked: “...democracy is the
worst form of Government except for all those other forms that
have been tried from time to time.”
If a democratic nation-state, imperfect as it is, is the best
guarantor for liberalism and individual rights, then how does
one build it? A nation-state, especially a democratic one, is
built on a social contract; on the collective belief of a sufficient-
ly large number of people that they are a nation.
So, what makes this collective belief possible? In one
simple word: Patriotism.
By providing the emotional energy for a nation-state,
patriotism also becomes a guarantor for the protection of
individual rights and liberalism.
Patriotism can be built on various models. The European
model is built on ethnicity, language and religion (different
versions of Christianity). The West Asian model is built on
a mix of authoritarianism (of a monarchy or the army) and
THE NATION-STATE
IS IMPORTANT FOR
LIBERALISM BECAUSE
IN THE ABSENCE OF A
STRONG INSTITUTION TO
ENFORCE ORDER, THE
RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS
BECOME EXTREMELY
DIFFICULT TO UPHOLDreligion (Sunni or Shia Islam; though, admit-
tedly, some states, like Egypt, were secular till
some time ago). Nation-states, in the basic design
of their nationhood, are fundamentally exclu-
sionary. They define themselves by what they
are NOT. And this aspect, in the minds of most
liberals, makes the nation-state an enemy of liber-
alism. Many European states have, no doubt, be-
come far more inclusive over the recent decades.
But this shaking up of the basis of their nation-
hood, in terms of ethnicity, language and religion,
has also shaken their concept of nationhood
itself. Many among the modern global liberal elite
speak of a post-nationalism world. John Lennon
“Imagine”d us living as one, some day. Beautiful.
But, as yet, a dream that seems unrealisable in the
foreseeable future. That someday is heartbreak-
ingly far away. At this point in time, it seems that
liberalism and individual rights cannot exist
without the guarantee of a nation-state.T
his is where the Indian model
appears very interesting. India
is one of the few countries in the
world—besides probably China and
Japan—that can lay claim to being
a ‘civilisational state’. This is a fundamentally
different model: a collective belief in an ancient
civilisational way in which we can imagine India.
Some deracinated Indians may believe that India
was created by the British, before which we didn’t
exist as a nation. This is an incomplete under-
standing of nation-building. Our nationhood is
not of the European or West-Asian exclusionary
style; and this is what gives strength to our model
in this modern, multi-cultural world. Our nation
is not defined by one language. It is not defined
by one religion. It is not defined by one ethnicity.
It is defined by a civilisation, in which multiple
languages, religions and ethnicities have lived
together for centuries—in some cases, for millen-
nia—developing bonds and a deep attachment to
this great land. We are not defined by who we are
NOT. We are defined by who we are: inheritors of
a great civilisation that is like our Mother.
This is what makes us, to use Nassim Nicho-
las Taleb’s term, an ‘anti fragile’ nation. We can
very easily adapt to the rapid pace of change that
is a given in these times, and yet keep our core
together. Our patriotism is not exclusionary. And
our belief in our nation is ancient. As the millen-