The current world is partitioned
into nation-states. Almost all nation-states have a central national
government, and a national armed defence force.
Some, like India have regional governments also, though these
governments do not have their own forces.
Also, the nation-states have well-defined geographical boundaries,
demarcating the regions of influence of these governments. Of course, in some
cases the locations of the boundaries are disputed by the neighboring
nation-states, leading to some armed conflicts. The question is: what is the
basis of such partitioning of the world?
Country is a geographical
concept, nation is a cultural concept, nation-state is a political concept.
Countries have natural, but often not strictly defined, borders. For example,
Australia and Great Britain are well-demarcated by seas all around; Indian
subcontinent is well-separated from the rest of Asia by the Himalayas etc. But
such borders are quite small in number, and are interpreted as continents or
sub-continents rather than countries. Geographical countries have less clear
borders- which could be a river, a hill range, a bay or gulf, change in soil
nature etc.
Cultural nations are even more
difficult to demarcate on the globe. It is true to some extent that people in
certain geographical regions have some characteristics of their own- in terms
of language/religion/art/cuisine. But since thousands of years, people from one
place have interacted with another, and have migrated or settled elsewhere.
This has inevitably resulted in cultural mixing. Some cultures have merged with
others and evolved into new forms, while some cultures have died away. Culture
has always been very dynamic. It is even more so in modern times, due to
globalization brought about by mass media. To stick to one particular set of
cultural practices and militantly oppose influence of other cultures is called
chauvinism.
Finally comes the question of
governance. Since historic times, almost all groups of people have some form of
government or the other- monarchy, theocracy, military rule, various forms of
democracy and so on. All governments need to have a geographical limit within
which they would have their influence, but not outside.
Since historic times to
the early 20th century, it was usual for governments to try and
extend their geographical sphere of influence, mostly by military expeditions.
Such tendencies could be due to economic, religious or strategic reasons, or simply
for the lust of power. Ever since the Second World War, it has been agreed upon
to make such expansions illegal, and partition the world into nation-states
with permanent fixed boundaries. There are still many instances where adjacent
nation-states do not agree on where their boundaries are, like India and China
do not agree about Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh. Again, such disputes may
arise due to economic or strategic reasons, or simply due to “pride”. The
current nation-states are demarcated by either geographical or perceived
cultural boundaries, or by a mixture of both. Some demarcations may exist only
for historic reasons, like at the end of WW2 if two regions were under
different governments, they have been retained as different nation-states. Most
nation-states claim to represent a homogenous cultural nation, and attempt to
celebrate them with concepts like national flag and national anthem. And then
comes a curious nation-state: India.
India encompasses lots of
religions and languages, as well as other characteristics like art and cuisine.
As already mentioned, it is very difficult, and probably useless, to demarcate
geographical boundaries of cultural nations. Nevertheless, India is currently
demarcated into zones based on languages- a cultural concept. Needless to say,
it is very common for people from one linguistic zone to move and settle in a
different linguistic zone in India. Federalists say that India the nation-state
encompasses many cultural nations. Alternatively, one can also say that all
these so-called cultural nations are linked by the so-called “unity in
diversity”. It is quite easy to spot cultural similarities and differences
across India. The question is, how we
will interpret them. It all depends on perspective.
One may harp on the differences more and say
that there are many cultural nations- Bengali nation, Tamil nation, Hindi
nation, Marathi nation and so on. Regional politicians routinely play up
chauvinistic sentiments to polarize people and garner votes. The limitations of
this idea are easily exposed by polyglot people- who may be born in Punjab,
move to Mumbai for livelihood, marry someone from Bengal who also has moved and
settled in Mumbai, and so on. Moreover if we are really looking for diversity,
it is always possible to further split these so-called cultural nations also!
This is proven by movements for creation of Telengana out of Andhra Pradesh,
Vidarbha out of Maharashtra, Kamtapur and Gorkhaland from West Bengal and so
on. Many people in Kashmir valley, Manipur and Nagaland do not even want to
stay inside the Indian nation-state. They claim to be separate nations and
demand nation-states for themselves. But even among them, there are tribes and
factions intolerant of each other. For any modern nation-state government,
territorial integrity is a prestige issue. So the Indian government refuses to
accept their demands of secession, and this has resulted in a never-ending
cycle of violence in these regions.
On the other hand, we may harp on
the similarities more, and say there is really one cultural nation. That is
what national political parties preach, but try to impose a majoritarian
cultural identity to the Indian nation-state: the so-called Hindu-Hindi
nationalism. This hurts the sentiments of the minorities, and more importantly
causes practical disadvantages for them in day-to-day life. On the other hand,
if we argue that the Indian nation-state is a distinct homogeneous cultural
nation, then comparisons must arise with neighboring Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal
and Bangladesh. After all, these also have strong cultural similarities with
the Indian nation, then why are they separate nation-states? But surely that
does not mean they should be integrated into the Indian nation-state: in fact many
people in these nation-states look upon India with suspicion and hostility- for
some valid and some invalid reasons.
In our subcontinent, the three concepts:
geographical country, cultural nation and political nation-state, have got
entangled peculiarly. The result: never-ending disputes, violence and mistrust
among people. These disputes are related to the question of individual
identity. Should I look upon myself as a Hindu, or a Bengali, or an Indian, or
a global citizen, or only myself? It is very possible that many or most common
people do not really care about this question. One can live a life without
answering it, or with the indisputable answer like “I am myself”. If that is
the case, then the disputes and conflicts in Kashmir, Nagaland, Telengana, Vidarbha,
Gorkhaland, etc are explained
as-frustrated power-hungry politicians are raking up divisive sentiments to
polarize people and gain followers. But it is equally possible that people
actually do take the question of identity very seriously, and the separatist
leaders and parties are only a reflection of popular sentiments. It is impossible
to say which is true- it is a chicken-and-egg problem. But either way- the
Indian nation-state is faced with a big dilemma: handling these disputes.
The federalist's point of view is
that, nation-state is an artificial hence flawed concept, it is the cultural
nation that is real. This is wrong because, as already pointed out, cultural
nations may not even exist due to the inevitable dynamic nature of culture. On
the other hand, it is probably true that nation-state is a flawed artificial concept,
due to the fact that it has rigid, well-defined boundaries which can cause
tremendous inconvenience to people living in border areas. They find their natural mobility restricted
due to presence of borders. Even if there is a forest or a river that is
geographically close they may not use it for their livelihood if it belongs to
a different nation-state. They may not visit relatives and friends across the
borders without detailed official procedures. And if the nation-state tries to
impose a majoritarian identity on them through religion, language or rules like
mandatory saluting of a flag, standing up to an anthem or being servile to arrogant
border security forces, it is even worse.
But then, for meaningful and
effective governance, boundaries and demarcations cannot be wished away.
Otherwise there will be inevitable confusion and conflicts. What needs to be
understood is that, rigid and strict borders are inconvenient and problematic
for all, and fewer the borders the better. Also, it should be realized that
creating separate nation-states on the basis of cultural nationality is never a
good idea. Not only are such nation-states unsustainable due to the dynamic nature
of culture, but more nation-states means more borders, and more problems. The
aim should rather be to gradually reduce borders all over the world, and encourage
the merging of nation-states. This should be a natural process, not coercive.
And states should exist only for purpose of governance, not for cultural
nationhood. Governments should realize the differences between geographical
country, cultural nation and political nation-state, and respect these
differences. Anyone should be free to live in a nation-state, assume any
cultural identity (s)he wants to (including none) and live life the way (s)he
wants as long as basic laws of the land are not violated. And these basic laws
should be close to universal, and as much unintrusive as possible. The only aim
of laws should be to have peace, justice, equality and sustainability in the
society- not promote beliefs and practices related to a culture. In other words, nation-states have to become
simply states- strictly political entities. States may continue to have armed
forces, but their duty should be maintenance of security- internally as well as
around borders, rather than fighting wars. State forces should not be
associated with old-fashioned romantic nationalist ideas like defending the honor
of motherland, instead they should act as an administrative service. If a
secessionist/separatist movement arises for governmental negligence of a
particular region, the government should be obliged to address their
grievances. But if secessionist/separatist movements are for issues related to
culture and identity, they should neither be entertained nor suppressed.
Suppression usually leads to cycles of violence. Nor should they be entertained
because one successful secession may well lead to others, resulting in more
nation-states, more boundaries and more problems. State forces should treat
cultural secessionist violence as a law-and-order issue- people can be arrested
only if they commit violence. The states should emphasize the fact that they
never enforce any cultural identity on anyone, and the creation of a new
nation-state is redundant. This way, the cultural and ethnic conflicts, and
eventually the existing borders will gradually die natural deaths, paving the
way for a unified and peaceful world.
