I have been following the fascinating conversation of ideas between Yogendra Yadav (‘The nationalism we forgot’, IE, May 27 and ‘The rediscovery of nationalism’, IE, June 5), Suhas Palshikar (‘Who stole my nationalism?’, IE, May 31) and Akeel Bilgrami (‘An alternative nationalism’, IE, June 16). I add here my thoughts as a back-bencher.

“Nation”, in its earliest Latin sense, meant “people”, referring to their birth, origin, breed, race, or tribe — somewhat like the Indian kula, gotra and vansha. Its earliest meaning in English was “a people or an ethnic community with a shared language”. After the emergence of John Locke’s political theory, the connotation changed to “a political society — subjects or citizens — inhabiting a defined territory within which its sovereignty is exercised”. That foregrounded the people’s identity as citizens and the sovereignty of the political order they adopt, a fundamental shift from the term’s original meaning, bringing it quite close to the Indian term rashtra.

The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) prioritised sovereignty in the arena of international relations. Yet the evolution of the term “nationalism”, based on the root “nation”, had a long wait in store. The League of Nations was established........

© Indian Express