Jingoism, Chauvinism, and other Barbarisms

By jingo, we'll trounce them!
We don’t want to fight, yet by jingo, if we do,
We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men,
And got the money too!
During the 1877 Russo-Turkish War Britain supported Turkey against Russia. The Mediterranean squadron rushed into the fray to hold back Russia. Britain was gripped in war fever. The brief verse I have quoted above is from a popular song that was whistled or sung during the time – it had caught the imagination of common folk. The word ‘jingo’ is an exclamatory refrain in the song – but it entered the language as jingoism meaning ‘loud-mouthed, confrontational nationalism’ that demands war on any pretext.

A century earlier was the Corsican who had risen from the post of a humble corporal to become the Commander of the Army and then, the Emperor of France by age 25. Napoleon's camaraderie with his soldiers, his military prowess, the sharpness of his brain – these became legendary among the French in his own lifetime, and he could afford arrogance enough to grab the crown and place it on his own head during his coronation ceremony.

The French gained a great sense of pride as vast territories came under their control under Napoleon's awesome leadership. The phenomenal admiration in which the French held him won the unquestioning loyalty of his soldiers. During this colourful period in French history, lived a soldier named Nicolas Chauvin. Chauvin was a soldier who displayed a simple-minded (you can say almost feeble-minded) devotion and loyalty to Napoleon.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that he typified “the cult of glorification of all things military that was popular after 1815 among the veterans of Napoleon’s armies.” This common soldier’s name gave the English language a new word – chauvinism (pronounced ˈshō-və-ˌni-zəm ). The word now stands for aggressive patriotism that is not quite rational. It includes a desire for war in the unreasonable belief that everyone who has any disagreement deserves destruction. [The world is fortunate that George Bush’s belligerent bluster has been balanced by pacifists who oppose war on both sides of the pond!] In a sense, therefore, the word chauvinism is synonymous with jingoism.

The reader would recall the pride with which many Indians looked upon the second nuclear test at Pokhran in Rajasthan state. We Indians forgot that chauvinism east of the Indus matched the jingoism of theocratic Pakistan! The smirk on the faces of the pro-bomb lobby in India was wiped out when, within a few days, Pakistan proved its nuclear capability. The ironic result of this was that a country that had a third of India's military power was now India's equal among the belligerent, war-mongering elite - just by virtue of the nuclear capability!

Chauvinism has no connection with war although chauvinists are imagined to be more loyal than the king! It simply means prejudiced support to one’s group to the exclusion of all others. When we speak of ‘male chauvinists’, we refer to those men who believe that males are superior to those of the opposite sex. [If I had said “weaker sex” or "fairer sex", I would be a chauvinist too!] By definition, those who think of their own culture or religion as the greatest, and ridicule those who are different are chauvinists. Culture and good education ought to teach us to avoid the pitfalls of a chauvinistic, biased view of other sections of society.
The Gujarat pogrom that resulted in the death and destruction of a section of Muslim society in 2002 was probably the most deplorable example of chauvinism displayed by secular India in modern history. The mass killings of Christians in Orissa is a mere sequel to the Gujarat massacre of 2002, and the middle class watches the drama with disinterest before quickly shifting to watching inane soaps on television.

We now see the ugly head of language chauvinism raising its dangerous head in Mumbai and in Bangalore (recently renamed Bengaluru). Governments have convinced us on their inability and ineptness in the face of incitement of people to violence. "Whither India?" is the question of the hour!

The conspicuous absence of perspective!

“The needs of 21st century India were conspicuous by their absence in the blueprints of our planners.” So said a college student while debating on the ‘Perspectives of our leaders’. “Power shutdowns, traffic jams and overcrowded trains wouldn’t have been our lot if planners had had foresight,” she said. "Current leaders ought to introspect and plan ... ..."

‘Perspective’ literally means a ‘view ahead’ or a ‘vista’. ‘Per-’ is a Latin prefix meaning ‘through’, and ‘specere’ means ‘to see or to look’. A clear perspective would indicate a discernment of what lies ahead.

Artists call a 3-dimensional view of objects in a picture perspective. An amusing Chinese proverb says – “From the lowly perspective of a dog's eyes, everyone looks short!” That’s the canine perspective.

The simple Latin verb ‘specere’ gave the English language a few hundred words.
In the early part of this article are the words introspect and conspicuous – both derived from the same root: ‘specere’. The student I referred to in the first paragraph was conspicuously more perspicacious (= insightful) than the rest of the class.

‘Conspicuous’ has the synonyms – eminent, distinguished, prominent, commanding, signal, marked, obvious, distinct, pronounced, evident etc. If you were so popular as to be sorely missed at a party, you would be conspicuous by your absence!

Here are more words from the same Latin root – aspect, expect, inspect, introspect, prospect, retrospect, scope, species, specimen, spectacle, spectacular, speculate, spy, suspect . . ..
It’s interesting to see that the word ‘despise’ has the same root too. Its adjective despicable [from ‘de-’ (= down) + ‘specere’] means ‘deserve to be looked down upon’ – worthy of contempt.

All said and done, we must accept that we don't see a high standard of debate among our parliamentarians, and quite often even of behaviour. Is it because our schools and colleges have failed to inculcate good parliamentary discipline, and exemplary debating capabilities?