Patriotism, Politics, and Power: Where Does Love for the Nation End and Political Manipulation Begin?
Author: MD Nasiur Rahaman Khan
College: St. Joseph’s College of Law, Bengaluru, Karnataka
LinkedIn Link: https://www.linkedin.com/in/md-nasiur-rahaman-khan-3930b5264
1. Abstract:
For a very long time, nationalism has been a powerful force that shapes our political identity, promotes social cohesion, and in inspiring collective action. In constitutional democracies, patriotism is usually understood as a civic virtue rooted in loyalty to constitutional values, democratic institutions, and the rule of law. However, the growing intersection between politics and national identity has raised difficult questions about whether nationalism is always an expression of love for the nation or, at times, it is a product of political construction designed to influence public perception and democratic discourse.
My article examines the constitutional distinction between patriotism and manufactured nationalism by analysing the relationship between political narratives, freedom of speech, constitutional morality, and democratic accountability. It argues that nationalism strengthens democracy when it unites citizens around constitutional ideals, but weakens democracy when it is transformed into a political instrument that confuses and associate’sloyalty to the nation with loyalty to the government. In a constitutional republic, patriotism must ultimately belong to the Constitution rather than to political power.
2. To the Point
“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.”
– Mark Twain
The distinction seems simple, yet modern politics has increasingly blurred it. A nation is permanent; governments are temporary. One belongs to the people, the other to those elected to govern them. Yet public discourse often treats criticism of the government as criticism of the nation itself. This raises a question that every democracy must confront: Can protest coexist with patriotism, or has politics convinced us that the two are incompatible?
The flag, the national anthem, the armed forces, and the Constitution have long been the symbols of collective identity rather than political ownership. They represent a nation that exists beyond electoral victories and party manifestos. However, when these symbols become closely tied with partisan narratives, patriotism risks being transformed from a civic virtue into a political instrument.
This is where the idea of manufactured nationalismemerges. It is not nationalism itself that poses the danger. Love for one’s country is neither unconstitutional nor undesirable. The danger begins when political actors manufacture, monopolise, or weaponize national identity to influence public opinion, silence disagreement, or redefine constitutional values according to political convenience. In such a circumstance, loyalty to the nation is gradually measured not by commitment to constitutional principles but by the obedience to dominant political narratives. History demonstrates that democracies rarely lose their freedoms overnight. They often lose them gradually, when citizens begin to equate obedience with patriotism and disagreement with disloyalty. If every criticism of those in power is dismissed as “anti-national,” dissent stops to be a democratic right and becomes a social stigma.
This article does not question nationalism. It questions the manufacture of nationalism. It asks a question that constitutional democracies cannot afford to ignore: Has support for the government become the new test of patriotism, or does true patriotism still include the courage to question those who govern in the nation’s name?
3. Use of Legal Jargon
3.1 Patriotism and Nationalism: A Constitutional Distinction
Although often used interchangeably, patriotism and nationalism are conceptuallytwo separate things. Patriotism generally signifies an individual’s affection, commitment, and sense of responsibility towards the nation and its constitutional ideals. Nationalism, on the other hand, refers to a broader political ideology centred on national identity, sovereignty, and collective unity. While both can strengthen democratic participation, nationalism may become problematic when loyalty to the nation is interpreted as unquestioning loyalty to political authority. Constitutional democracies therefore distinguish devotion to the nation from loyalty to those who temporarily govern it.
3.2 Constitutional Patriotism
The Constitution of India offers a model of patriotism rooted not in political ideology but in constitutional values. The Preamble commits the Republic to justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity, while Article 51A enumerates the Fundamental Duties expected of every citizen, including respect for the Constitution, the National Flag, and the National Anthem. These duties are not instruments of political conformity; they are civic obligations intended to preserve democratic culture. Constitutional patriotism, therefore, requires fidelity to constitutional principles rather than unquestioning acceptance of governmental action.
3.3 Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Dissent
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees every citizen the freedom of speech and expression, a right that lies at the heart of democratic governance. This protection extends beyond popular opinions and includes the freedom to question public authorities, challenge governmental policies, and participate in political discourse. Dissent is not an exception to democracy; it is one of its defining characteristics. Constitutional democracies progress through debate rather than uniformity, making disagreement an essential component of accountable governance.
3.4 Liberty, Autonomy, and Individual Dignity
Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Judicial interpretation has expanded this guarantee to include autonomy, dignity, and the freedom to make personal and political choices without arbitrary interference. A citizen’s political beliefs, ideological preferences, and participation in public discourse form part of individual autonomy. Democratic citizenship therefore protects not only the freedom to support the State but also the freedom to question its actions.
3.5 Reasonable Restrictions
Constitutional rights are not absolute. Article 19 permits reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, public order, decency, morality, and other constitutionally recognised grounds. These restrictions exist to protect democratic order rather than suppress legitimate criticism. Consequently, the constitutional test is not whether speech is agreeable to those in power, but whether it falls within the carefully defined limitations imposed by law.
3.6 Constitutional Morality
Constitutional morality is the principle that public institutions, governments, and citizens must act within the framework of constitutional values rather than political interests or majoritarian sentiment. It demands that democracy be governed by the rule of law, institutional accountability, and respect for fundamental rights. In this framework, the Constitution remains the highest source of political legitimacy. Governments derive authority from it, not the other way around. A mature democracy is therefore measured not by the intensity of political loyalty it demands, but by the constitutional freedoms it continues to protect.
4. The Proof
4.1 Manufacturing National Identity
National identity is cultivated over generations through history, education, collective memory, culture, and shared experiences. Schools teach national history, public institutions celebrate national holidays, political leaders invoke moments of collective sacrifice, and the media continuously reinforces narratives of identity. These are not problematic. Every nation requires shared symbols capable of fostering social cohesion.
The constitutional concern arises when these instruments stop to educate and begin to persuade. History may become selective rather than comprehensive. Political speeches may gradually redefine loyalty in party terms. National symbols, intended to unite citizens irrespective of their ideology, may be presented as markers of politicalloyalty. Social media algorithms exaggerate emotionally charged narratives, rewarding outrage over nuance and certainty over dialogue. In such an environment, nationalism is no longer discovered through shared constitutional values; it is increasingly curated through competing political narratives. History repeatedly taught that the struggle for power is often accompanied by the struggle to define the nation itself. Whoever shapes the national narrative more often acquires the ability to shape public opinion.
4.2 Patriotism or Political Loyalty?
One of the defining characteristics of a constitutional democracy is the distinction between the State, the government, and the nation. Governments are elected, governments change, but the nation and its Constitutionlasts.
The difficulty arises when these distinctions begin to disappear in public discourse. If criticism of governmental policy is automatically interpreted as hostility towards the nation, democratic accountability becomes increasingly difficult to sustain. Citizens may begin to hesitate before expressing disagreement not because the law forbids it, but because social and political narratives redefine dissent as disloyalty.
This raises an uncomfortable constitutional question: When criticism of the government is casually labelled “anti-national”, does patriotism gradually become political obedience?
A democracy cannot meaningfully function if support for the nation is measured by agreement with those temporarily entrusted to govern it. The health of a republic depends not upon unanimous approval but upon the continued existence of informed disagreement.
4.3 The Politics of Fear
Political communities have historically been shaped not only by hope but also by fear. External threats, internal instability, terrorism, armed conflict, and concerns regarding national security have all influenced the relationship between governments and citizens. Genuine security concerns undoubtedly require responsible political leadership. Yet history also illustrates that fear possesses extraordinary political power because it simplifies complex questions into immediate choices between loyalty and perceived danger.
When societies perceive themselves to be under threat, public discourse often becomes less tolerant of disagreement. Citizens may become more willing to exchange civil liberties for promises of security, while political debate shifts from constitutional reasoning to emotional mobilisation. The issue is not whether threats exist they often do but whether fear begins to dominate democratic decision-making to such an extent that constitutional freedoms are viewed as obstacles rather than guarantees.
The challenge for constitutional democracies is therefore one of balance: protecting national security without allowing the language of security to overshadow the language of liberty.
4.4 The Cost of Manufactured Nationalism
Manufactured nationalism carries consequences that extend far beyond political campaigns. Its greatest impact is often psychological rather than legal. Citizens begin to censor themselves before anyone else does. Writers reconsider uncomfortable questions, journalists hesitate before pursuing controversial stories, academics avoid sensitive discussions, and ordinary individuals measure their opinions against anticipated public reaction.
This phenomenon produces what constitutional scholars describe as a chilling effect. Freedom of speech may formally survive, yet its practical exercise gradually contracts because individuals fear social condemnation more than legal punishment.
Democracy does not weaken only when voices are silenced. It also weakens when voices choose silence.
4.5 Constitutional Patriotism
If manufactured nationalism seeks loyalty through political identity, constitutional patriotism seeks loyalty through constitutional values. It neither demands blind approval of the government nor encourages perpetual cynicism towards public institutions. Instead, it places the Constitution above political interests and recognises that genuine patriotism is measured by commitment to justice, liberty, equality, fraternity, and the rule of law.
Constitutional patriotism accepts that citizens may disagree profoundly about policies, elections, or governments while remaining equally devoted to the nation. It acknowledges that criticism and patriotism are not opposing forces but complementary features of democratic citizenship. A republic becomes stronger not because every citizen thinks alike, but because every citizen remains equally protected while thinking differently.
5. Case Laws
5.1 Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986)
Popularly known as the National Anthem Case, BijoeEmmanuel v. State of Kerala arose when three school children belonging to the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith respectfully stood during the National Anthem but refused to sing it, believing that doing so conflicted with their religious convictions. For this refusal they were expelled from school.
The Supreme Court held that the expulsion violated their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25 of the Constitution. The Court observed that genuine respect for the nation cannot be measured solely through compelled participation in patriotic rituals. By protecting individual conscience over enforced conformity, the judgment reaffirmed that constitutional patriotism respects both national symbols and individual liberty.
5.2 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, holding that its vague and overbroad language had a chilling effect on free speech. The Court emphasised that democracy depends upon the uninhibited exchange of ideas, including opinions that may be unpopular, uncomfortable, or critical of those exercising public power.
The judgment reinforces an important constitutional principle: political speech occupies a privileged position in a democracy because accountability is impossible without the freedom to question authority.
5.3 S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989)
In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, the Supreme Court strongly defended freedom of expression by holding that speech cannot be suppressed merely because it is controversial or because sections of society disagree with it. The Court famously observed that freedom of expression cannot be held to ransom by threats of intolerance or anticipated public disorder.
The decision remains one of India’s strongest judicial affirmations that democracy requires the courage to accommodate diverse and even dissenting viewpoints. Constitutional values are strengthened through dialogue, not through enforced uniformity.
6. Conclusion
The greatest threat to a nation is rarely the citizen who asks difficult questions. It is the moment when questioning itself begins to appear unpatriotic. History has repeatedly shown that nations are not weakened by dissent; they are weakened when loyalty is valued more than truth and conformity becomes more comfortable than conscience.
Patriotism does not ask for applause. It asks for responsibility. Manufactured nationalism asks for performance. One invites citizens to think, participate, and hold power accountable; the other asks them only to agree.
Perhaps the true measure of love for a nation is not how loudly one proclaims it, but whether one is willing to defend its Constitution even when it is inconvenient. For if patriotism requires silence, it is no longer patriotism it is obedience.
Patriotism asks citizens to build a nation. Manufactured nationalism asks citizens merely to perform loyalty.
7. FAQs
Q1. What is manufactured nationalism?
Manufactured nationalism refers to the deliberate shaping or amplification of national identity through political narratives, media, public symbolism, or state influence to mobilise public opinion or reinforce political legitimacy. Unlike organic patriotism, it is driven by political objectives rather than shared constitutional values.
Q2. Is criticism of the government anti-national?
No. In a constitutional democracy, criticism of governmental policies is a legitimate exercise of the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Criticising a government is not equivalent to opposing the nation, provided such criticism does not incite violence or threaten the sovereignty and integrity of India.
Q3. What is constitutional patriotism?
Constitutional patriotism is the idea that loyalty should primarily be directed towards the Constitution and its values justice, liberty, equality, fraternity, and the rule of law rather than towards any political party, government, or ideology. It recognises that citizens can express patriotism while also holding those in power accountable.
