{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04063745019920319, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011155378486055778, 'mean_word_length': 5.248756218905473, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Indian State, Nehruvian (Anti) Nationalism, and the Question of Belonging

Such is the hegemony that the nation-state has acquired in everyday political thinking that the adjective pertaining to ‘state’ is almost always rendered as ‘national’. Ideal-typically, the adjectives ‘civic’ and ‘ethnic’ serve to map the pluralist versus particularist themes onto nationalisms and states (even though we might avoid the national question somewhat by speaking of ‘civic belonging’ instead of ‘civic nationalism’). The ‘national’ invokes the legitimacy of popular sovereignty in the service of the state. Furthermore, we are dealing very often, at least in the international domain (by which is meant inter-state) with the assumptions of an idealised liberalism that sees the possibilities of pluralism, as contained in its own ideologies, as capable of being universalised.1 ‘Liberalism’ as a category was seldom directly invoked in Indian political discussions in the twentieth century; it has increasingly been used in the post-Cold War environment, and the Indian academia, that in part addresses an Anglo-American audience, tends to use it today as if it was a self-evident category.2 Contemporary Perspectives Vol. 3, No. 2, July – December 2009, 181–204