Whether political debates are held in private groups, arranged on public forums, or flare up on social media websites, patriotism underpins all these discussions. If not mentioned overtly, it acts as an elephant in the room whose magnificent presence can only be ignored for a short time, but afterwards it has to be acknowledged. If it is brought up and stressed upon distinctly, as it happens often, then patriotism works as a tool to divide people between those who agree with you, from those who don’t. Once marked, people then assail the non-conformists with verbal assaults, accusing them of following the enemy’s agenda, the same way we doubt and ridicule the religious minorities in Pakistan. Close observation will also reveal that patriotism on many levels follows similar principles used in the religious discourse: you have to believe in the sovereignty and superiority of one/same God (country) and if you don’t you are treated as an apostate (traitor) condemned to death. This divisive nature of a vital, ubiquitous, but ambiguous concept of patriotism had disturbed me for a while, just like sectarianism, to the point that I began to doubt my own patriotic credentials. In the end, I had no choice except to do what I have been trained to do all my professional life: look up the modern scientific literature. So, I started digging into the current reputable peer-reviewed political science journals, where at-last I got my questions answered. People who study these articles know how dense and boring they can be, so I will save you that trouble. Instead, I will share what I understood in simple terms, and will leave it up to you to investigate further, disagree with me for having a better argument, and draw your own conclusions. As I suspected from the outset, there was a dark side to our ideal of patriotism. That dark side is identified and defined as a separate entity called nationalism. Knowing just that eased my mind. I knew I was on the right track and geared up to plow harder. My first question was: what is nationalism? And how is it different from patriotism? According to the literature, “Nationalism reflects an uncritical attachment and idealization of the nation, combined with a sense of national superiority with respect to other countries.” Not only that, “Nationalism implies the desire to maintain a high degree of national homogeneity while simultaneously emphasizing differentiation with other nations.” Every word about nationalism seemed to fit what Pakistanis understand as patriotism. It also means nationalistic ideals will make you doubt everyone who does not speak your language, share your faith, or agree with your world vision-a common undertone in our national discourse which focuses on conspiracy theories. Modern scholars believe that “due to a better access to resources, greater control over institutions, and higher social status within the superordinate national group, majorities are likely to develop a stronger sense of symbolic ownership of the nation than minorities” On the other hand, patriotism “reflects pride in one’s country, particularly in its political institutions (eg, democracy) and is based on a positive evaluation of the country, independently of comparisons with other countries.” Yes, you read it correctly, ‘pride in the democratic institutions’ makes you patriotic. And if you are ridiculing them, calling them names in comparison to the undemocratic and non-political forces, you can be certainly called many things but being patriotic will not be one of them. Of course, my next line of question was: Based on these definitions which countries will have more patriotic tendencies? “Research has shown that advantageous national economic conditions were positively related to political pride (a concept close to patriotism) and negatively to nationalism.” Conversely, I also found “economic inequality in a country was related to higher levels of nationalism,” which did not surprise me either. Moving along, I asked: within a nation state, is there a particular ethnic group who will be more nationalistic than others, hence more eager to denounce people with political disagreements? The answer was surprising initially but as it sank in, it made sense. Modern scholars believe “due to a better access to resources, greater control over institutions, and higher social status within the superordinate national group, majorities are likely to develop a stronger sense of symbolic ownership of the nation than minorities.” Don’t you think it’s true that an extreme version of national pride is promoted by the ethnic majority in Pakistan which is supported by every pillar of the state and strengthened by every governmental institution? The net result is a weakened federation in which every ethnic minority feels threatened to be on the receiving end of an ‘operational clean-up.’ After making such a strong statement about Pakistan, I had to ask myself: What is the literature saying about criticizing your own country for its mistakes and wrong policies? Should I be considered a traitor that many people would like to call me? To my relief, I found “patriotism often contains a dimension of critical attachment; that is, patriotism may include a critical view of the nation when national actions are perceived to be at odds with democratic principles.” Hence, the modern definition of patriotism not only allows critics who raise their voice against nondemocratic forces and are barred to express their views; it encourages them to do exactly just that as a duty! The writer is a US-based freelance columnist. He tweets at @KaamranHashmi and can be reached at skamranhashmi@gmail.com Published in Daily Times, August 28th 2018.