Nationalism is but extended Regionalism

I was discussing the idea of dividing land for personal interests. India is probably the only country where states and provinces are divided on the basis of languages and cultures. Sometimes I wondered, what it would be if it was divided by intersecting straight lines as in US or Canada? Recent demands of Telangana evoked this complaint of mine again.. I went back home for holidays and as ever, was discussing these social issues with my father. He gave me an interesting insight into these things.

He said, “You have been asking for your own room in the house since you were 10. For decorating it in your own way, for calling it yours. If boundaries are not required, what’s the point in calling India your country? Nationalism is nothing but an extended version of Regionalism. You have personal feelings attached with the fight for Indian independence, so you support it but do you have any rights to oppose these people just because you don’t belong to the issue? If formation of Jharkhand is a failure, so is the formation of an independent India. Success or failure of a state is completely personal to itself, isn’t it?”

I was left speechless. Nationalism is nothing but an extended version of Regionalism. Why should I take pride in things I didn’t personally accomplish?

(from an old diary entry)


One response to “Nationalism is but extended Regionalism

  1. Amazing example by your father Sourav. It truely illustrates the title and clarifies a somewhat confusing question in my mind also (to some extent). Thanks 🙂

Speak up!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s