Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons. Bertrand Russell
You'll never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism out of the human race. George Bernard Shaw
Patriot games
By Irfan Husain
December 20, 2008
FEW things bring patriotism rushing to the surface as being under attack. For India, the Nov 26 assault on Mumbai was very real.
But for millions of Pakistanis, the accusation that their country was the base for this act of terrorism was an attack as well. For the last three weeks, they have endured lectures from everybody from Condi Rice to Gordon Brown to Manmohan Singh. And while there is much substance to these accusations, the truth is seldom easy to face.
For a hack like me with a permanent address in cyberspace, I feel Im in the middle of a firestorm, with both sides sending me long, impassioned emails. Many Indian readers have proposed that Pakistan be nuked out of existence. Several Pakistani readers, apart from insisting on proof to back up the assertions of a Pakistani link with the Mumbai attack, have suggested that we should be prepared to go nuclear in the event of any Indian aggression.
Presumably, both these extreme views are an expression of patriotism. I have pointed out in my replies that nuclear war would spell doom for both countries, given their proximity. Prevailing wind directions would make a radioactive wasteland of vast tracts of land, rendering them uninhabitable for decades. And thats the problem with gung-ho patriotism: once it dominates the agenda, logic and reason go out the window.
In 1816, Stephen Decataur, a legendary American naval commander who led his countrys fight against the Barbary pirates, said in a toast to celebrate the victory: Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong! This expression of patriotism has often been misquoted as My country, right or wrong!
I personally reject this amoral, irrational stance for G.K. Chestertons view expressed in 1901: My country, right or wrong is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying My mother, drunk or sober.
Apart from religion, patriotism and misplaced national pride have probably been responsible for more mayhem and misery than any other cause in human history. And when patriotism and religion combine to fuel a conflict or a cause, the results are usually lethal. Ideologies like national socialism, fascism and communism have the attributes of religious dogma and fierce loyalty to a country, and have caused some of the most destructive wars of the last century.
And now, the spectre of Hindu nationalism and Islamic jihad haunt the foreseeable future. Of these, the latter is global, cutting across national boundaries as Islam does not recognise political borders. But this is an oversimplification: most Islamic movements are linked to national causes, and not to dreams of world conquest and conversion. The Lashkar-i-Taiba, for instance, is dedicated to Kashmirs liberation. Its goal in no way justifies its vile methods, but the context in which it is operating is to do with misguided patriotism. Its foot soldiers are motivated by a blind, unthinking belief in an extreme vision of Islam, while its leadership cynically exploits hostility between India and Pakistan to make a very good living for themselves.
As we have seen over the last fortnight or so, the media in both countries have jumped in predictable directions. On Indian TV channels, there has been a steady drumbeat of macho warmongering of the worst kind. This has been matched by jingoistic posturing in Pakistan by a battalion of retired generals and diplomats, as well as professional hacks. All this sound and fury over the airwaves has presented the world with the unedifying picture of two hormone-driven teenagers spoiling for a fight. As Samuel Johnson said so perceptively back in 1775: Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
It is natural to form a bond with ones birthplace. Most animals are territorial creatures, and Homo sapiens no exception. A country represents a shared lifelong experience, as well as a physical refuge in a hostile world. And with love for ones country comes national pride: most of us want our flag to fly high, our team to win, and our economy to thrive. Unfortunately, we Pakistanis have less and less to be proud of.
Since the mid-1970s, the nation has been on a downward trajectory. Repeated bouts of military rule have devastated institutions, and have caused an upsurge in extremism and intolerance. Religious tensions and violence now threaten to break the country apart.
Meanwhile, India, while it has much to be proud of, is not without its own set of problems. Extreme social and economic inequalities apart, its secular foundation is under threat, and large areas are in a state of insurrection. Given these problems on both sides of the border, one would think a war was the last thing either country needed. And yet, judging from the outpouring over the media, there are large numbers of super-patriots in both countries who would like nothing better than another meaningless battle.
Fortunately, leaders in New Delhi and Islamabad have shown more maturity than has been the norm in relations between the two countries. But there were some familiar knee-jerk reactions in evidence: visas for Pakistani civil society activists were blocked for no apparent reason. These are the very people opposing the jihadis in Pakistan, and whom India should be supporting. There were accusations by Pakistan of Indian over-flights. And of course, sabre-rattling by spokesmen on both sides.
It is clear that this is a time for cool thinking and analysis, and not for macho posturing and heated rhetoric. But alas, much of our media has been so preoccupied with beating war drums that there has been little rational debate. With patriotism being substituted for common sense, there is hardly any space left for reason. In many ways, Pakistani media reaction has mirrored its Indian counterpart. But sadly, it often happens that we demonise the enemy to whip up domestic support. Except that in this case, it is not the official propaganda apparatus that has been so active, but private channels and newspapers.
For my part, I am happy to stand by Samuel Johnson when he wrote in his Introduction to the Political State of Great Britain: It is unpleasing to represent our affairs to our own disadvantage; yet it is necessary to show the evils which we desire to be removed.