The writer’s linguistic analysis (“ >What does it mean to belong? ” June 8) doesn’t account for the fact that the two different meanings of the word “belonging” are used for different categories of entities and in different contexts. In the case of people, the word can’t be used in the sense of possession by a community or the nation-state. The writer’s view regarding the relationship of people and a nation-state represents the classical theory of sovereignty as advocated by Jean Bodin and John Austin which is unsuitable for modern societies. This view has been aptly rejected by pluralist thinkers like Harold Laski and Robert MacIver. The concept of possession of people by communities and nation-state is detrimental to democracy and will promote tyranny and authoritarianism. A human being is a rational, socio-psychological being having both material and spiritual components. The word “belonging”, in the case of people, can’t be interpreted as possession as they aren’t solely material entities like a table, a chair or a RSS lathi ! Lastly, isn’t it undemocratic and anarchic that in democratic societies, institutions other than the state claim punitive powers?
Priyansu Bhardwaj,
New Delhi
