The ABVP’s Hypocrisy on Nationalism

The row over a documentary screening at the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) has highlighted the complex and often confusing landscape of nationalism in India. Last week, Karnataka Congress president BK Hariprasad fired back at the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) for its demand that the Centre intervene to cancel the screening of Prisoner No. 626710 is Present, a documentary about jailed activist Umar Khalid.

The ABVP’s stance on Khalid appears to be less about his alleged anti-national activities and more about seeing him as an adversary. Hariprasad’s scathing critique of the ABVP was a clear shot across the bow, calling its members “admirers” of Nathuram Godse, an anti-national and terrorist in Indian history. This criticism came after the ABVP sent representations to several Union ministers, including Home Minister Amit Shah, seeking their intervention to cancel the documentary screening.

The ABVP’s moral authority on nationalism is questionable at best. By defending Godse, who assassinated Mahatma Gandhi, the student organisation shows a blatant disregard for India’s democratic values and its commitment to secularism. Hariprasad’s comments were a much-needed correction of this distorted view of nationalism, one that sees dissent as unpatriotic and opposition as treasonous.

The controversy reveals a worrying trend towards authoritarianism in Indian politics. The fact that the ABVP feels emboldened enough to take on the Centre over a documentary screening suggests that opposing viewpoints are increasingly being pitted against each other in a zero-sum game. This division is particularly evident in educational institutions, where the freedom to dissent and engage in critical thinking is under threat.

The row at NLSIU is just the latest example of how nationalism has become a weapon of choice for politicians and student organisations alike. From Khalid’s case to the controversy surrounding JNU students’ union leader Kanhaiya Kumar, the narrative around dissenting voices has been consistently distorted by those who seek to silence them. The ABVP’s actions in this instance are just another manifestation of this broader trend.

The documentary screening was postponed due to security and administrative reasons. However, the ABVP’s demand for cancellation speaks to a larger issue: how dissent is being silenced and opposition is being demonized. The organisation’s actions also underscore the need for critical thinking in our educational institutions – not just about abstract concepts of nationalism, but about the real-life implications of such ideologies.

The freedom to dissent is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, hard-won and fiercely contested today. The ABVP’s attempts to silence Khalid’s documentary screening are a reminder of how fragile these freedoms are. As we watch this drama unfold, it’s worth remembering that our educational institutions should be spaces for open discussion and intellectual inquiry, not battlegrounds for ideological wars.

The Centre’s response will be closely watched, particularly from Amit Shah. Will he intervene on behalf of the ABVP, or will he allow the screening to proceed? Whatever the outcome, this controversy has exposed a deep fault line in Indian society – one that runs through our educational institutions and into the very heart of our democracy.

Ultimately, it’s up to us as citizens, educators, and participants in public discourse to defend our freedoms and uphold the values of democratic India. The ABVP may think it’s fighting for nationalism, but what it’s really doing is exposing its own brand of authoritarianism for all to see.