BJP detractors, including the Congress and others in the INDIA alliance that springs to life off and on, often have a stock response whenever they are cornered or whenever they need to hit out against the saffron party—the BJP did not participate in the freedom struggle. To be sure, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was founded in 1980, long after India's independence in 1947, and, thus, did not exist during the freedom struggle. Its ideological parent, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), did not officially participate in the major movements against the British rule, such as the Quit India Movement, unlike the Congress party, although Hindu stalwarts like Veer Savarkar did participate in the early phase of the freedom struggle, for which he paid with solitary confinement in Kaala Paani in the Andaman Islands for long years.

The larger question, however, is whether participation in the freedom struggle is the sole touchstone of nationalism. Of course, this perception squares with the notion that emerged strongly in 19th-century Europe, promoting the idea that each nation should govern itself. A strand of nationalism based on ethnicity is shared heritage, language, faith, and ancestry, which is the article of faith with the RSS and the BJP. They aver that even Indian Muslims are from the same Indian ethnic stock; ‘Their DNA is the same as Hindus’ is their refrain. On the other hand, the more liberal notion is civic nationalism—based on shared political values, citizenship, and allegiance to state institutions. Protective........

© Free Press Journal