Beyond the Border, Diljit Dosanjh, the Politics of Culture, and the Quest for an Inclusive Patriotism

Beyond the Border, Diljit Dosanjh, the Politics of Culture, and the Quest for an Inclusive Patriotism

In the charged atmosphere of our contemporary world, where nationalism is often defined by hardened borders and vocal animosity, the space for a more nuanced, humanistic patriotism has dramatically shrunk. Patriotism is increasingly presented as a binary choice: you are either unquestioningly with the state, or you are against the nation. Into this fractious landscape steps an unlikely but powerful diplomat: the global Punjabi pop sensation, Diljit Dosanjh. During a sold-out concert in Kuala Lumpur, a moment of profound significance unfolded. As the Indian tricolour waved proudly in the hands of a fan, Dosanjh paused his performance. Instead of offering a perfunctory salute to the flag, he embarked on a candid, impromptu monologue on the complex nature of nationalism, the politicization of culture, and the artificial barriers that seek to divide people. This moment was not an isolated incident but the latest chapter in Dosanjh’s consistent project of articulating a patriotism that is rooted in cultural pride yet expansive enough to transcend political boundaries—an inclusive patriotism for a globalized age.

Dosanjh’s comments in Malaysia were a direct response to the controversy surrounding his film, Sardaan Ji 3. The film, which co-starred Pakistani actor Hania Aamir, became a soft target in the volatile arena of India-Pakistan relations. Following a tragic terrorist attack in Pahalgam, the film’s release in India was scuttled, not due to its content, but solely because of the nationality of one of its cast members. Dosanjh clarified that the film was shot before the attack, yet it was pulled into a political maelstrom. “They exerted much force to show me against the nation,” he stated, highlighting a disturbing trend where cultural products are weaponized and artists are forced into a defensive, nationalist loyalty test.

This phenomenon is part of a wider global pattern where art and entertainment are held hostage to geopolitics. Cricket matches between India and Pakistan, for instance, are often imbued with jingoistic fervor, where the outcome is framed as a national victory or humiliation. Dosanjh astutely drew a distinction, pointing to the “massive difference” between these politically charged sporting events and his film. His central argument was powerful in its simplicity: culture becomes the easiest casualty when diplomatic ties sour. It is a soft target, vulnerable to boycotts, bans, and moral panics, precisely because it operates on the plane of shared humanity—a plane that hardline nationalism seeks to dismantle.

The Dosanjh Doctrine: A Consistent Philosophy of Connection

What makes Diljit Dosanjh’s stance particularly resonant is its consistency. This is not a one-off, calculated public relations move, but a deeply ingrained part of his artistic and personal identity. His career is a testament to using his platform to champion a broader, more compassionate sense of community.

• The Farmer’s Protest: During the massive farmers’ unrest in 2020-21, Dosanjh was one of the most prominent voices from the Indian entertainment industry to stand in solidarity with the protestors. He used his immense social media reach to amplify their cause, share their stories, and counter disinformation. In doing so, he aligned himself with a movement that was, at its heart, about the dignity and rights of a community he proudly represents. This was patriotism not as blind allegiance to state policy, but as a fierce loyalty to the people who form the nation’s backbone.

• The Met Gala and Cultural Pride: At the 2023 Met Gala, a global spectacle of fashion and celebrity, Dosanjh made a statement that was both sartorial and political. He did not arrive in a generic tuxedo but proudly showcased his Punjabi heritage. His turban and traditional attire were more than a fashion choice; they were an act of cultural assertion on a world stage. He presented an unapologetic image of Indian identity that was rooted in regional specificity, challenging monolithic and often stereotypical representations of the nation.

• The Manchester Concert: Perhaps the most direct antecedent to his Kuala Lumpur speech was his act at a concert in Manchester in the previous year. Upon learning that a fan had traveled from Pakistan to see him perform, Dosanjh gifted her a pair of shoes. In explaining his gesture, he delivered a line that encapsulates his entire philosophy: “Borders are made by politicians… our music is common.” In this simple, profound act, he rejected the political cartography of division and celebrated the shared cultural topography that binds people across the Radcliffe Line.

The Power of Cultural Bridges in an Age of Animus

In a world where geopolitics frequently sours relationships between nations—especially neighbors with a history of conflict like India and Pakistan—the role of culture and sport as a bridge becomes critically important. While politicians and generals speak the language of power, strategy, and security, artists and athletes speak the language of shared emotion, rhythm, and struggle.

Music, cinema, and literature possess a unique ability to foster empathy. A Bollywood song can evoke nostalgia in a Karachi household; a Coke Studio collaboration can top the charts in both Delhi and Lahore; a novel can humanize the “other” in a way that news headlines never can. These cultural artifacts create a parallel universe of connection that exists alongside, and often in spite of, political hostilities. They remind audiences on both sides of the border of their shared histories, linguistic affinities, and common human experiences—falling in love, facing heartbreak, celebrating festivals, and yearning for a better life.

Sport, similarly, can be a powerful, if temporary, unifier. The same India-Pakistan cricket match that can ignite jingoism also has the potential to showcase incredible sportsmanship and mutual respect between players. The collective, breathless anticipation of billions of fans sharing a single emotional experience is a testament to a deep, underlying connection that politics cannot entirely erase.

However, as the case of Sardaan Ji 3 demonstrates, these bridges are fragile. They are often the first casualties when tensions rise, easily burned by the fires of nationalism. Protecting these channels of people-to-people connection is not an act of apathy towards national security concerns; rather, it is an investment in a more stable and humane future. It is the recognition that dehumanization is the precursor to conflict, and empathy is its antidote.

Redefining Patriotism: From Exclusion to Inclusion

The dominant, hyper-nationalist version of patriotism is inherently exclusionary. It defines the nation in narrow, often ethnic or religious terms, and demands conformity. It views any engagement with the “enemy” culture as a form of treason. This brand of patriotism is brittle, fueled by fear and a perpetual sense of victimhood.

Diljit Dosanjh’s actions propose a radically different, more robust form of patriotism. This inclusive patriotism is confident, not insecure. It is rooted in a deep love for one’s own culture—be it Punjabi or Indian—that is so strong it does not feel threatened by appreciating the humanity of others. It understands that cultural confidence is demonstrated through exchange and dialogue, not through isolation and boycotts.

This “largeness of spirit,” as the original article notes, is not a betrayal of the nation. On the contrary, it represents a deeper, more mature form of national love. It is a patriotism that cares for the farmer, celebrates the artisan, and takes pride in the global success of its artists. It is a patriotism that can hold two ideas in its head at once: a fierce pride in India and a genuine warmth for the shared cultural heritage of South Asia.

True patriotism is about building a nation where justice, equality, and freedom thrive. It is difficult to argue that banning a film with a Pakistani co-star or shunning a fan from across the border contributes to this project. In fact, such actions often diminish the nation’s standing in the world, presenting it as intolerant and insecure. The inclusive patriot, therefore, works to build a country that is not only strong but also admired for its generosity of spirit and its cultural vibrancy.

The Road Ahead: Nurturing the Fragile Saplings of Empathy

The path forward requires a conscious effort to protect and nurture these fragile cultural connections. It demands:

1. Critical Support from the Public: Audiences must learn to decouple art from politics. Appreciating the work of an artist from a rival nation is not an endorsement of that nation’s government. It is a celebration of artistic merit.

2. Courage from Artists: More artists, following Dosanjh’s example, need the courage to resist being forced into nationalist boxes. Their primary allegiance is to their art and their conscience.

3. Responsibility from Media: The media must refrain from sensationalizing every cross-cultural collaboration as a “controversy” and instead frame it as a normal, healthy aspect of global cultural life.

4. Strategic Vision from the State: While governments must address genuine security threats, they should also recognize the long-term strategic value of cultural diplomacy. Soft power is a nation’s most potent asset.

Diljit Dosanjh, with his turban, his powerful voice, and his unassuming wisdom, has become an icon of this defiant, inclusive love. In waving the Indian flag while speaking of shared music and rejecting political borders, he has shown that the most powerful patriotism is not one that builds walls, but one that confidently builds bridges, reminding us all of the common humanity that no border can ever truly erase.

Q&A Section

Q1: What was the specific incident at the Kuala Lumpur concert that sparked this discussion on nationalism?
A1: During his performance, Diljit Dosanjh noticed an Indian tricolour waving in the audience. Instead of a simple acknowledgment, he used the moment to deliver an impromptu speech. He addressed the controversy around his film Sardaan Ji 3, which was not released in India due to its Pakistani co-star, Hania Aamir. He clarified the film was shot before a tragic terrorist attack and expressed that forces had tried to portray him as being “against the nation.” This led to a broader commentary on how culture is unfairly targeted when cross-border political relations deteriorate.

Q2: How does Diljit Dosanjh’s definition of patriotism differ from hyper-nationalism?
A2: Dosanjh’s inclusive patriotism is fundamentally different from hyper-nationalism. Hyper-nationalism is exclusionary, defining love for the nation through hostility towards a designated “other.” It demands conformity and views cultural exchange as treason. Dosanjh’s patriotism, in contrast, is confident and rooted in deep cultural pride. It does not see appreciation for shared cultural elements—like music with Pakistan—as a threat. His philosophy, exemplified by his statement that “borders are made by politicians… our music is common,” argues that a strong, genuine love for one’s own culture can and should coexist with a recognition of shared humanity across political divides.

Q3: What are some other examples from Dosanjh’s career that demonstrate his consistent stance on these issues?
A3: Dosanjh’s stance is a consistent thread in his public life. Key examples include:

• Farmers’ Protest (2020-21): He was a vocal supporter of the protesting farmers, using his platform to amplify their cause, demonstrating a patriotism rooted in solidarity with the people.

• Met Gala (2023): He proudly wore traditional Punjabi attire, making a strong statement of cultural pride and identity on a global stage.

• Manchester Concert (2022): He gifted shoes to a Pakistani fan, explicitly stating that while borders are political constructs, shared music creates a common bond that transcends them.

Q4: Why are cultural and sporting connections so vulnerable to geopolitical tensions, and why is it important to protect them?
A4: Culture and sport are “soft targets” because they operate in the realm of civil society and people-to-people contact, which is easier to disrupt than state-level diplomacy. They are vulnerable to boycotts and bans because they are highly visible and emotionally resonant. Protecting these connections is crucial because they are invaluable channels for building empathy. When politics dehumanizes the “other,” culture and sport can re-humanize them by reminding people of shared emotions, stories, and joys. These fragile bridges help maintain a baseline of mutual understanding, which is essential for any future reconciliation or peaceful coexistence.

Q5: What does the article suggest is needed to foster a more “inclusive patriotism”?
A5: The article suggests a multi-stakeholder approach to foster inclusive patriotism:

• The Public should learn to appreciate art separately from politics.

• Artists must have the courage to resist narrow nationalist labeling and stay true to their artistic and moral compass.

• The Media should report on cross-cultural collaborations responsibly, avoiding sensationalism and manufactured controversies.

• The State should recognize the long-term strategic value of cultural diplomacy and soft power, even while managing complex security concerns. Ultimately, it requires a collective “largeness of spirit” that views cultural confidence and connection as strengths, not weaknesses.