This article was originally written in response to the tragic terrorist attack on security forces in Pulwama, Jammu and Kashmir, on 14 February 2019, which claimed the lives of 40 soldiers. Six years later, on 22 April 2025, another horrific attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, left 26 civilians dead in broad daylight. I pay my heartfelt tribute to those lost in this tragedy and extend my deepest condolences to their families. Beyond this, I have little to add amidst the clamor that follows such incidents.
However, a new development post-Pahalgam demands attention: the United States has equated the political and military leadership of India and Pakistan, declaring both nations equally significant as markets. Strikingly, no self-proclaimed 'proud Indian' has expressed outrage at this affront. Reproduced here is an abridged version of the article, originally penned in 2019, in order to reflect on this persistent issue.
A World Defined by War
Modern industrial civilization has been shaped by catastrophic conflicts, most notably the two World Wars, which claimed an estimated 100-150 million lives. These were followed by independence struggles, proxy wars, and the Cold War, described as a unique global conflict marked by significant casualties. In recent decades, Islamic terrorism has redefined warfare, blending traditional, counter, and civil war elements, prompting the global "War Against Terror" (WAT).
World War I saw chemical weapons; World War II introduced nuclear devastation with the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, cementing American supremacy. Since then, the specter of nuclear war looms, even as it is paradoxically viewed as a deterrent to a third world war. Arms races escalate, and discussions of an imminent global conflict persist. Albert Einstein’s warning resonates: "I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
India, under British rule, participated marginally in the World Wars and fought its own battles for independence in 1857 and 1942. The Azad Hind Fauj, led by Subhash Chandra Bose, collaborated with Axis powers during World War II to challenge British rule. Post-independence, India engaged in wars with Pakistan (1948, 1965, 1971, 1999) and China (1962). These conflicts highlight a grim reality: as long as imperial exploitation persists, wars will continue—between looters and the looted, among looted nations, and within them, driven by imperialist brokers against their own working classes.
Yet, India’s civil society—encompassing much of its intellectual class—lacks a serious understanding of war, its global industry, or India’s potential role in future conflicts. It remains oblivious to the historical reasons behind India’s defeats by invaders and colonists, including the pivotal struggles of 1857 and 1942. This ignorance stems partly from a deliberate focus on economic prosperity over military realities, despite India’s aspiration to superpower status. Civil society’s patriotism often manifests as war-mongering hysteria, targeting perceived internal enemies—sometimes even women—in the name of nationalism. As Kishan Patnayak noted, this enslaved mentality has deeply scarred the Indian psyche, a phenomenon I have critiqued for over two decades, only to see it intensify.
The Enslaved Patriotism of New India
Since the adoption of New Economic Policies, India’s civil society has been gripped by a hollow patriotism, narrowing its sense of citizenship and humanity. Over the past three decades, corporate capitalism has plundered national resources and labor, a process accelerated under Narendra Modi’s leadership. Public sector institutions are dismantled, democratic norms eroded, and India ensnared in neo-imperialism. Civil society, complicit in this betrayal, refuses to acknowledge its role, enriched as it is by this loot.
This civil society projects its patriotism through figures like Modi and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), whose claims to nationalism are steeped in contradiction. The RSS, craving patriotic legitimacy, equates its volunteers’ zeal with the Indian Army’s valor, peddles cow dung bunkers as defense strategies, and exploits soldiers’ deaths for electoral gains. Modi, who opened the defense sector to 100% foreign direct investment, equates traders’ risks with soldiers’ sacrifices, prioritizing crony capitalists like Anil Ambani in deals like Rafale, sidelining public sector giants like Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.
The Pulwama attack exemplifies this dysfunction. No thorough investigation followed, with even the death toll (reported variably as 40-44) remaining unclear. Accountability was sidestepped, and the incident was drowned in war cries, exploiting soldiers’ deaths for political gain. The Indian Air Force’s Balakot strike on 26 February 2019, described as a “non-military preemptive action,” was celebrated, yet its reliance on Israeli bombs raised no questions about India’s shift from self-reliant Soviet-era armaments. Civil society’s war-mongering ignored critical issues: Why does India depend on foreign weapons? Will these ensure security in a potential global conflict? Why does the U.S., revered by this civil society, continue arming Pakistan?
This patriotism, rooted in hatred rather than valor, targets internal “enemies” but never demands action against China, which occupies 20,000 square kilometers of Indian territory, or the U.S., which has consistently backed Pakistan. Such cowardice risks undermining the morale of India’s security forces.
The Failure of Alternatives
The RSS/BJP’s brand of patriotism draws support not only from its followers but also from educated professionals and officials, who, despite their expertise, remain politically naive. The secular-progressive camp, while opposing this jingoism, is marginalized, weakened by its covert allegiance to capitalism and opportunistic alliances with non-BJP parties. Its rhetoric—mocking Modi devotees or fixating on identity politics—fails to offer a robust counter-narrative. Some in this camp, in their anger, conflate the Indian State with its governments, inadvertently bolstering the RSS/BJP. Others, claiming Gandhian ideals, distort his legacy, often aligning with the RSS.
This absence of an authentic patriotic narrative allows the RSS/BJP’s hollow patriotism to dominate, shielding corporate capitalism’s loot and diverting blame to minorities. True patriotism—rooted in anti-imperialist struggle and constitutional values—remains elusive, perpetuating the crisis of a cowardice-driven, enslaved mindset masquerading as national pride.
---
*Dept. of Hindi, University of Delhi; Former Fellow, Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla; Former Visiting Professor, Vilnius University, Lithuania, and Sofia University, Bulgaria
Comments