A country becomes a nation only when all its citizens living within an administrative boundary share a sense of oneness and are involved with one another in the interest of their ‘nation’.
Idea of nationalism
Nationalism & globalisation
In certain academic circles people believe that the global spread of internet technology, businesses, transportation and communications has turned the world into a ‘global village’ thus thawing the sense of nationalism. This simplified idea of ‘global village’ shrinking the idea of nationalism is misconstrued to say the least. It may be true for super rich individuals who can land anywhere in the world in their private jets but the idea of a global village is as far from reality as it can be.
The feeling of ‘belonging’ to a certain religion, ethnic and or linguistic group, region, creed or a ‘nation’ can never be underestimated. At the national level, nationalism is promoted as an ideology that embraces the shared identity of its citizens irrespective of the background of individuals. People however, define it as patriotism not nationalism. The government expects that all its citizens rise above their personal or regional identities for the sake of national security and development. Unfortunately, this is not the case in many situations. Debate on what is nationalism, citizenship and patriotism is alive and well.
In our contemporary history there have been reorganisations of boundaries due to colonialism, wars and conflicts. Historians claim that eighty percent of African countries’ borders are drawn by the colonisers simply following longitude and latitude lines not based on natural boundaries. As a result, people with common ethnic linguistic and cultural groups are thrown apart, separated by artificial boundaries. In other cases, within the existing administrative boundaries there are citizens with diverse ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural background co-existing with unease, including due to forced relocation of people during colonial days. Some of the ethnic conflicts we are witnessing regularly in several countries is a vivid example of such a historical incident. There is also unfair treatment and discrimination against certain groups of population, locally as well as nationally by the administration in countries with multi-ethnic populations. People’s tendency for self-segregation with common ethnic backgrounds is the result of uneasy co-existence in multi-ethnic countries.
Is there a practical solution?
The ideals of nationalism is that each nation be governed and chart their course of governance with their own tradition pursuing their own interest without external interference. It is a fair and simple argument; however, multi-ethnic countries have different experiences. Struggle for political independence to form a separate nation state – a country of their own – can be as smooth as in the separation of Chinese dominated Singapore from Malay dominated Malaysia in 1965 or it can be violent as the case of separation of Christian dominated South Sudan from Islam dominated Sudan.
The philosophical debate of nationalism resurfaced seriously following the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and dissolution of Soviet Union. The violent split of Yugoslavia is a case in point. There are other active cases such as the perennial ethnic clashes in Myanmar (Burma) despite numerous peace agreement with various ethnic armed groups. There is also no denying that there is known western support for rebels with a view to destabilise countries disliked by the western powers. There are also genuine cases for separate nation states for certain minority groups as in the case of Kurds. There are between 30 to 40 million Kurdish people living in Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria but there is no country for Kurds. There is an autonomous region of Kurdistan in Iraq for about 6 million Kurds. Global and regional geopolitics continue to frustrate the ambitions of various such groups of creating a country or a nation of their own.
The philosophical debate of nationalism resurfaced seriously following the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and dissolution of Soviet Union. The violent split of Yugoslavia is a case in point. There are other active cases such as the perennial ethnic clashes in Myanmar (Burma) despite numerous peace agreement with various ethnic armed groups. There is also no denying that there is known western support for rebels with a view to destabilise countries disliked by the western powers. There are also genuine cases for separate nation states for certain minority groups as in the case of Kurds. There are between 30 to 40 million Kurdish people living in Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria but there is no country for Kurds. There is an autonomous region of Kurdistan in Iraq for about 6 million Kurds. Global and regional geopolitics continue to frustrate the ambitions of various such groups of creating a country or a nation of their own.
How viable is it?
Most countries in the world have a coexisting multiple ethnic population. The problem begins when the government starts to discriminate one against the other for political or economic or other purposes. But the main question is how viable is it for each of these ethnic or linguistic groups to be an independent nation state, economically? There are 30 small nation states of whom 26 have less than 50k population but all of them are either islands or territories of a European country; twenty-seven of them are less than 200 sq.km. in size. If this logic is applied, we will be looking at hundreds of, perhaps thousands of nation states; it is not a viable idea.
The moral consideration here is human relations and application of the rule of law. If a country can promote and sustain an egalitarian political, economic and social welfare the question of the majority and minority and the impression of discrimination one against the other will never arise, which is the main cause of ethnic or religious or any other form of nationalism.
There are other external issues such as the idea of ‘new world order’, ‘universal jurisdiction’, ‘extra-terrestrial laws’ and direct or indirect support for certain groups of people by external elements which have become a threat to the existing nation states. Such situations have exploded in the past and could ignite fervours of nationalism anytime anywhere. The idea of ‘greater Middle East’ proposed by the US Administration in 2004, which includes Israel, Turkey, Afghanistan, Arab countries was rejected instantly by Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan. Nevertheless, Condoleezza Rice continued to refer to it as the ‘new Middle east’ in 2006 as Bush’s vision of the future.
The above idea of ‘greater middle east’ has its origin in Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. In 1999 the Foreign Policy Research Institute had even included all countries in Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia and Caucasus in the greater middle east concept. Who has the authority to define and re-define such regional boundaries?
It is thus likely that the idea of nationalism and its boundaries flares as and when there are threats be it internal or external to the country, nation state or ethnic – linguistic – or religious groups. As and when people sense any kind of threat to the local laws, traditions and value system and are forced to adopt anything dictated by the dominant powers backed by powerful entities the idea of nationalism awakens.
Besides the political interference, with the spread of an extremely intrusive AI under the umbrella of technology and capitalism, people everywhere are likely to experience negative consequences exacerbating inequalities, loss of autonomy, income, and even independence. As a result, there may be a surge in nationalism to protect local economies, local laws, traditions and value systems. Nationalist leaders are more likely to have broader local public interests which address people’s and stop the monopoly international pressure. The boundary of nationalism could surge more then ever.
The moral consideration here is human relations and application of the rule of law. If a country can promote and sustain an egalitarian political, economic and social welfare the question of the majority and minority and the impression of discrimination one against the other will never arise, which is the main cause of ethnic or religious or any other form of nationalism.
There are other external issues such as the idea of ‘new world order’, ‘universal jurisdiction’, ‘extra-terrestrial laws’ and direct or indirect support for certain groups of people by external elements which have become a threat to the existing nation states. Such situations have exploded in the past and could ignite fervours of nationalism anytime anywhere. The idea of ‘greater Middle East’ proposed by the US Administration in 2004, which includes Israel, Turkey, Afghanistan, Arab countries was rejected instantly by Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan. Nevertheless, Condoleezza Rice continued to refer to it as the ‘new Middle east’ in 2006 as Bush’s vision of the future.
The above idea of ‘greater middle east’ has its origin in Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. In 1999 the Foreign Policy Research Institute had even included all countries in Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia and Caucasus in the greater middle east concept. Who has the authority to define and re-define such regional boundaries?
It is thus likely that the idea of nationalism and its boundaries flares as and when there are threats be it internal or external to the country, nation state or ethnic – linguistic – or religious groups. As and when people sense any kind of threat to the local laws, traditions and value system and are forced to adopt anything dictated by the dominant powers backed by powerful entities the idea of nationalism awakens.
Besides the political interference, with the spread of an extremely intrusive AI under the umbrella of technology and capitalism, people everywhere are likely to experience negative consequences exacerbating inequalities, loss of autonomy, income, and even independence. As a result, there may be a surge in nationalism to protect local economies, local laws, traditions and value systems. Nationalist leaders are more likely to have broader local public interests which address people’s and stop the monopoly international pressure. The boundary of nationalism could surge more then ever.
Read more by Ramesh Shreshtra
Contact Ramesh at ramesh.chauni@gmail.com
Comments
Post a Comment
If you are a member of XUNICEF, you can comment directly on a post. Or, send your comments to us at xunicef.news.views@gmail.com and we will publish them for you.