Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi had invited scathing criticism from all corners in February earlier this year when he remarked that India is not a nation, but a union of states. While an ordinary politician would have learnt from the pushback and not tried to press the nerve again, Rahul did just the same. During the three-day Chintan shivir organised by Congress in Udaipur, Rajasthan to contemplate a revival strategy, the party scion went on a tirade yet again and made his foolish statements.
“Some days back, I made a speech when I said, India, Bharat is a union of states. That is the line that is written in our constitution. India is not described as a nation but as a union of states. The states of India and its people have come together to form the union. And it is critical for the union of this country that the states and the people are allowed to have a constitution,” said Rahul.
He also added, “The conversation that should happen between the people of India, and the states of India are the institutions that the congress party, that your leaders including Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Maulana Azad and Ambedkar have helped us create. These institutions do not belong to any political party, any individual but they belong to the Union of India.”
Read More: Congress’ ‘Chintan-Shivir’ is a sham
Rahul and his sub-nationalism ploy to divide India
Rahul Gandhi and his Congress party have come to the realisation that they cannot beat BJP on their political turf. BJP is far too dedicated and determined in its approach to winning elections, unlike the country’s oldest party. The soft Hindutva reboot and Muslim appeasement politics have not worked for Congress and thus the party is banking on the sub-nationalism plank to do its bidding in the upcoming elections.
It’s not a coincidence that Rahul has tried to use regionalism to paint a picture that India is a divided land where states have an identity independent of Bharat. Effectively, Congress is suggesting that before 1947, India was a landmass of different states that were brought together by the party and its leaders.
However, we at TFI have taken the onus upon ourselves to school our geography champ Rahul Gandhi about the genuine definition of what constitutes a state, a nation-state and a country.
What makes a country a country and in turn a nation?
A country like India is defined by its sovereignty, meaning none of the neighbouring or far away state actors can interfere with its internal affairs nor they can erode an inch out of India’s territorial region. Another aspect that defines a country is an internationally recognized government that provides public services and police power and has the right to make treaties, wage war, and take other actions on behalf of its people
Bharat as a nation has existed since time immemorial. And unlike the West, where nationalism is a relatively new phenomenon, the feeling of being a part of one bigger entity has banded us for thousands of years. Sure, there may have been different kings and kingdoms ruling at one point in the grand old Bharatvarsha but a single kingdom never defined Bharat. The overarching identity of Bharat as a country always remained independent irrespective of the dynasties ruling across the landmass.
Indian states have always been a part of a sovereign India, not the other way around
However, if the states were independent as Rahul suggests, they should have had sovereignty too, right? But as we have witnessed on innumerable occasions, the police from one Indian state can travel to another state in India and capture the accused and return with him without any furore. Example: Bihar Police can easily enter the boundary of neighbouring state of Uttar Pradesh, conduct its operation and return.
Compare the same to a country like the USA. The police in the state of Minnesota may not be able to enter the state of Michigan. The Governors of these states acting as the mini-President have a charter to follow and not necessarily the US constitution. Crossing the state lines and conducting an operation is a herculean task.
The US states even have their independent armed forces which is a concept completely unheard of in Indian states. In the US, state defence forces are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government. Meanwhile, we only have an army and it’s called Indian Army. Succinctly put, the US states are completely sovereign and it is one of the reasons why the US is called the ‘United States of America” and India is not called the United States of India.
The Nation-States
Meanwhile, the nation-state is an independent state ruled by the citizens of a community who call themselves a nation. Western commentators may not term the European nations, currently a part of the European Union as an example of a nation-state but it does fulfil the criteria of nation-state.
The sovereign European nations are administered by a higher governing body which makes the major economic and military decisions for them. There is a parliament and it decides how much money and what international geopolitical decisions should be taken for the greater good of the sovereign European countries under its umbrella. Similarly, the British and its commonwealth can be a precise example of a nation-state arrangement.
A certain French philosopher had once remarked, “A nation is a spiritual principle, the result of the intricate workings of history; a spiritual family and not a group determined by the configuration of the earth.” Bharat is the true definition of a nation. Our Puranas had referred to Bharat as a nation long back when the concept of the same may not have existed.
Vishnu Purana says, “Uttaram yat samudrasya Himadreshchaiva dakshinam. Varsh Tad Bharatam Naam Bharati Yatr Santatih,” or, “the land which is situated to the north of the sea and to the south of the Himalayas is called Bharat Bhoomi, and the people residing on this holy land of Bharat are called Bhartiya.”
However, for the likes of Rahul, reading the history may be an arduous task as the Marxist historians have brainwashed him to understand that India only came to sentience after 1947. Just the way Western world doesn’t understand that Hindusim is not a religion but a commonwealth of many religions, Congress and Rahul’s understanding of Bharat is skewed.
