Despite being a supporter of supporting one's native land i.e., its culture, history, religion, et al., I feel disgusted to call myself a 'Nationalist' nowadays. This feeling is a result of few recent socio-political events that have forced to question my own beliefs towards nationalism. Does 'Nationalism' mean to violently disrupt a 'harmless' neo-political discussion on any government activity? Does it allow self-proclaimed 'Desh-Bakhts' to prejudice against those who dare to have different opinions? I might sound full of rage to few while like a 'terrorist' to many but 'Prevention is better than cure' don't imply to completely cut your 'possibly' infected body parts. Rather, this aphorism teaches us to take preliminary precautions before any serious problem (Being wild once is enough for any country) might arise which can, at last, only be cured. And, even that cure should not, in any way, be similar to "genocide". For those who like transparent clarity, any disorder need not to be handled with extreme measures without taking into account its full analytical study.

Being a nationalist is a very proud feeling to anyone who appreciates her birth-land and recognizes her due-debt to it. This indebtedness is not irrational as she has often been cared, understood, defended, sheltered, fed, identified, recognized, and remembered by her nation as well as its people. I strongly believe that it is a sense of belonging to a community than just a mere belief which makes her a nationalist. Imagine a child being brought up in a very remote place with no celebration of her existence! Will she understand the feeling of belonging to a group where she is getting the care we, humans, are luckily capable to show? In my opinion, being a nationalist is to show my immense gratitude towards this overwhelmed and maybe selfless care.

Then, on the other hand, appreciating your land and its people doesn't mean to totally disregard the idea of "Agreement on disagreements". One has a right to her opinion on any matter as much as the others' right to defend their views. Even if it is related to a critical analysis of her own government's actions. Blindly respecting or following anything is irrational and on top of that, killing people or threating them or ruining their lives in the name of that belief is an absolute crime which should not be tolerated at all. In my opinion, being a nationalist of that kind is a choice. A choice similar to whether intervening your father/mother for his/her wrong actions or just vaporize them. It might not be as frightening as the Orwellian 1984 but sometimes, it sure feels like it.

Forceful compliance has never been successful, the history of our civilization is the proof. People should be able to choose their identities. Be it nationalism's parent philosophy - collectivism or its opposite individualism. Exercising individualism doesn't mean that it disrespects the collectivists' gratitude or commonly perceived obligation towards their nations. And, it is not the collectivist 'Blade Runners' duty to bring down the 'rogue' individualists and that too in any way possible. And, when a nationalist follows on the path of an anarchist and not a collectivist, her actions, ironically, doesn't align with his own philosophy's fundamentals. Collectivism, as a doctrine, teaches one to be in harmony with her surroundings and the people living in it. Now, there is always a chance that few of those surroundings' elements may not necessarily have the same interpretation of your doctrines as yours. Creating disorder over such matters is exactly what the twisted beliefs of anarchism refers to. In the end, every nationalist has a choice to be either a 'Collectivist' or 'The Masked Anarchist'.