Social Thought – Think It Yourself

The Patriot-Nationalist spectrum; an Indian’s perspective.

A very common theme I find in some people’s self declaration is that they are Patriotic, but not Nationalists. A head-scratcher for many, is there really a difference? Aren’t they just synonyms?

In the basic sense, yes they are. Most middle school teachers won’t cut your marks for using one instead of the other in the essay. But where they differ is the degree, or intensity, or even some ontological priorities. In simple terms, they could be seen in the same degree of variance as words Hot and Scalding differ. In fact, if you search for the difference, you’ll find detailed discussions on the topic. An example could be seen in these articles

1) https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/patriotism-vs-nationalism
2) https://www.dictionary.com/e/patriotism-vs-nationalism/

By giving the disclaimer, people simply are trying to signal their understanding of this nuance, and their position on the spectrum. But, are they really thinking through the nuanced lens, or is it just an attempt at wordcelling to obscure one’s agenda.

Let’s look at simple definitions for one, taken from dictionary.com

Patriotism is, “devoted love, support, and defense of one’s country; national loyalty.”
While Nationalism is defined as “the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one’s own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.”

While any thinking person may easily decipher, that Patriotism is milder while, Nationalism can be excessive. But, here the question lies, those who emphasize being Patriotic rather than Nationalist, are they really practicing what they preach. How often do you see them weakening the defence in garb of criticism? How often do you see them supportive of one’s own over others? How often do you see them being fully devoted?

A key difference between Patriotism vs Nationalism is, that Nationalism often dives into a regime of one’s superiority over others. But nowhere in the definition of Patriotism, does it mean to compromise one’s own in favour of others. But alas, the degree of loyalty needed to at least be a Patriot is lost on many.

For all post-modern thinking obscuring the definition of Nationalism, it still has another meaning, “a nation’s wish and attempt to be politically independent.”

Being politically independent is not just about having democratic elections, it is about our Nation’s place in the world. It is about not having to worry about outsiders in countering a threat which hampers the nation in any way. It is about having a say in global affairs, and not having to tow someone’s line. We may have gained independence over 75 years ago, but we still have some work to do before we gain Political independence.

I don’t know where I lie on the post-modern Patriot-Nationalist spectrum, but I don’t care. In my own eyes, I am a Nationalist. I don’t need any self justifications for it. I’m not blind to the challenges my nation still has to overcome, but overcoming those and keeping their own interests above anything are all the same.

When intellectual cowardice becomes intellectual dishonesty

Every time in moments of crisis, you see people with muddled views, cognitive dissonance, and sometimes outright rejection of reality. They visibly lack the courage to state the obvious, and would frame statements that beat around the bush. They are too scared to offend, too unoriginal in speech, their words sound hollow, and their intentions feel disingenuous.

And I’m not including ideologically polarised individuals to this mix. They have absolute clarity for their position. They won’t leave their ideological camps for any reason, whatever reality may transpire. Any muddled speech or disingenuous position they display is purposeful. Some may hide themselves better than others, but their stance is almost always clear. They are always ready with defence of indefensible.

I’m not talking about fence sitters and ideological grifters. The ones who go with the flow, become what their surrounding people are or whatever the current cool thing is. The ones who take pride in their intellectual and moral superiority, jumping to pontificate in defence of some obscure cause. But what is the root of their outlook. What real world experience is basis of their thoughts. Because whenever something real happens, they usually don’t have a genuine reaction or something cohesive to say. Either they wait for someone from their circle to make a move, or go on a different tangent all together.

Not always but many a times, such people come from privileged backgrounds. People with highbrow accents, sometimes significant higher education as well. But it only reflects in the choice of their vocabulary rather than message. Education must equate with critical thought, but even their occasional display of critical thinking is disconnected from reality. They love moral grandstanding, but their inclination is more towards what sounds good rather than what is a real greater good.

What is the reason of this lack of objectivity? Are they actually ignorant due to living in a bubble? Is it because they fear being judged for a strong stand? Or the fault lies in the uncontextualised education they’ve got? Less privileged people often display a higher degree of clarity than highly privileged ones. They often rely on lived experience and can’t survive without clarity. But despite living in higher safety net, the elites look more afraid. Their cowardice converts into intellectual dishonesty. For the fear of being cast out, they become sellouts.

Exuberance of youth and Risk taking appetite

Sputnik moment, they say in the field of AI, when DeepSeek R1 was revealed to the world. It has sent American incumbents into tailspin, and even ruffled the lazy feathers of the rest of the world, including India, which was so far comfortable letting the ‘big boys of silicon valley’ do the heavy lifting. The mere projection of an exorbitant budget needed for any such undertakings has kept many from even attempting a foundational model. What High-Flyer has achieved at their claimed budget has shattered this presumption.

Then there’s another angle to it, the age factor which has caught attention. The founder himself is barely 40, and the team which created the model has an average age of below 35. Yet, they achieved this landmark outcome. And then, we roll back to a very recent debate in India, which became absurd as it went. “Youth must work 70 hours a week”, an old stalwart exclaimed publicly. “Work 90 hours, why are you wasting your sundays staring at your wife”, said another veteran in a private affair, but got leaked to the public anyway.

So when DeepSeek rose from the east, the nocturnals burning the midnight candle serving their clients on the other side of the globe, and the early risers trying to do their best with what they have, got startled all the same. Obviously the ball of accountability saw itself getting passed in courts at first. Some saw it as an affirmation of the stance, that youth must work more. Others saw it as a lack of vision with leadership, which is busy shipping internet coolies rather than building something fundamental.

But I see another aspect of it. I don’t just see the average age of the working group. I see the age of the leader, or basically the public face of leadership. The gentleman began when he was just 30, and has achieved this milestone before turning 40. Obviously, he wouldn’t have done it without the patronage of big bosses in the Chinese government. But, it still happened, because someone in the big chair was listening to a person with fewer gray hairs.

Every veteran is busy telling youngsters, they need to work more. But, are those veterans willing to listen to those youngsters when they say how they could work better? Do they patiently listen when the hurried up youngsters speak? How many times have you seen a youngster suggesting something in public forums, and not getting a lecture in return? How many youngsters do you think refrain from saying something to avoid getting lectured back? You want them to work, but are you ready for them to lead or work for themselves?

Yes, youth are inexperienced. They lack wisdom which comes from relevant experience, relevant being the keyword here. Experience at times is irreplaceable. They make mistakes. They are in a hurry. They want things too fast without putting in the same work. BUT, if you look at the last sentence from another vantage point, it’s the definition of EFFICIENCY.

If old ways of doing things were always better, we’d still be living in mud huts waiting for rain to sprinkle our fields, which our ancestors did work very hard on for long hours. Then some lazy chaps had to invent things to shorten or lessen the workload once in a while, and here we are in the modern age, working so little with our hands than them. Sarcasm in the last statement aside, things changed because some people, often in comparably younger years throughout history, wanted more for doing less or wanted something different altogether.

Change is risky. Anything new breaks the status quo. And our beloved experience, which is so much praised for its virtue, often makes us risk averse. In fact, aversion to risk is unironically an aspect of wisdom. In aviation we often say, a superior pilot is someone who uses his superior judgement to stay away from situations which may need his superior skills. Experience nurtures that judgement. The history of aviation is written in blood, and safety is paramount.

But, everything isn’t aviation. In fact, if staying away from situations where you might be at risk was such a hallmark of human virtues, we wouldn’t even have taken to the skies in the first place. Real wisdom is also in watering a plant whose fruits you may never eat. That enthusiastic youth is that plant. The youth needs guidance as plants need water. If you drown it, it’ll wither and die. Give it just the right amount and it’ll flourish, and you the fruits when the time is ripe.

The Meticulous Citizen.

With the increasingly politicised world and frequent political process, questions of polity has become a day to day affair. A large part of population is affected everyday by this, and thanks to social media, much more actively participating than previous generations. Active participation for previous generation as citizen was limited to voting in elections, and participating in a few rallies, if they intended from time to time. Activism was reserved for a few, mostly those who were actually involved closer with active politics.
But with our generation, activism is reaching every doorstep. Everyone has means to raise their voice and be heard. Every news of politics, be it international or small regional ones reaches us. Regional elections are matter of national discussion, and affect national politics many a times. While this easiness of information exchange has strengthened democracy, it has also put it at risk. Inflammatory articles reach you as quickly and in much larger volume than before. Masses are more polarised, as their convictions are reinforced through fake news, which masquerades as genuine sources of information.
With all this, the task of being an effective citizen has become tougher. Vetting correct information from barrage of false ones is a critical skill to gain itself. And it’s not just about the fake news, even the genuine ones at times are not straight facts, but opinions based on events. Opinions, which may carry biases of the ones sharing them. How they sound to you depends on which set of ideas you carry. When those comes from people of authority, they carry a different weight. You may immediately feel accepting, or critical about it depending on which camp that information originated from. And that’s where the effectiveness of a Meticulous Citizen comes in play.
Being a good citizen means you do your homework before acting on any information. You vote after understanding the policy, not because you’ve always voted for them. You listen to both sides, and then do activism not based on ideology but on logic. And to apply logic, you need to be critical, not just of the camp you disagree with, but the ones you support too. In fact, a good citizen doesn’t need to stay in a camp, fealty is a thing of feudal societies. We live in democracies where every vote counts. We may take it for granted, but having ability to elect our officials is a great privilege. The only loyalty we need to worry about is to our society as a whole. To excercise privileges of citizenship is what it is, an excercise.

What do you think about it?