Dr Rao VBJ Chelikani
It is too late to start cultivating ‘political
nationalism’ in India now, which never existed in the past. The concept of
nationalism has already been tried elsewhere in Europe with catastrophic consequences,
and discarded after much bloodshed. In history, for that matter, no pure nation
ever existed, and all political states are a concoction of varied people who
moved in and settled at different dates. All human beings have always been
settlers, ever since they started coming out of the forests in search of plain
lands and riversides.
European Experience:
The idea of nationalism is not wrong by itself. It is
a search for giving oneself a particular and different identity among many
others with their own identities. So in the beginning, historically, in
countries like Italy and Germany, the concept served to unify different people
for a common identity. Charged with myths and provoked emotions, many dictators
emerged out of this nationalism and used their people only as cannon fodder to
fight for the glory of their tribe, race, land, language or leader. It is
converted into a political strategy when a state absorbs this national
identity, and thereby the concept loses its humanist values. Nationalism, in
the first fifty years of the Nineteenth century, promoted hatred for other
races, religions and cultures and enmity with other national entities and made
peaceful co-existence difficult among most of the states. It provoked new
identities among minorities and made them sub-nationalities.
After the World Wars and during the reconstruction of
Europe, regions in each state started asserting themselves, and many European
states were re-structured as a federation of regions. When they formed the
Council of Europe and the Common Market and later emerged as the European
Union, most states surrendered their pretensions of absolute sovereign state
attributes and started obeying the rules and regulations formed by a strong
pan-European bureaucratic European Commission. This has been the logical social
evolution in the developed countries. Soon, the European Union is going to
operate like a union of regions rather than states.
The concept of nation-state as promoted in Western
Europe has not been satisfactorily applicable, at all, to most of the states in
Africa and Latin America, as it tries to prevent all social transformations,
suppresses all diversities within and sees all outsiders as potential rivals
for domination. In the vast majority of developing countries, the state and its
operators became all-powerful constantly imposing themselves upon the citizens,
internally and externally. Nationalism conceived as an expanded version of
'tribalism' is preventing Africa from rapid and continued growth; the energies
of the states and their resources are not, ultimately, directed to the
development of its residents.
But, now in the 21st century, instead of drawing
ourselves into a smaller circle to live in, we have to draw a wider circle,
covering the whole globe. In such a context, trying to promote nationalism now
in India in this twenty first century would take our country one hundred years
back, and put us in a situation that provoked two world wars. India has always
been a cultural nation and never been a single political entity even during the
British rule. The British rulers were content with Paramountcy and did not
command absolute Sovereignty.
When is the
‘Chindia’ Duet?
The present political India
is not a nation in the sense that China is. China has been an ancient empire
from times immemorial. It has been dominated by a series of powerful dynasties,
a race, a language and now by a single political party. Now, it wants to become
‘One China’ by claiming all territories that were historically and incidentally
in contact with it. In India, on the other hand, the former rulers were more
preoccupied with the spread of cultural, philosophical, religious and spiritual
messages than with consistent political ambition to conquer others’ lands. We
also, now we cannot claim ‘Akhand Bharat’ denying all historical happenings.
Further, in India, our people have never been as homogenous as the Chinese.
Though Mr. Jawahar Lal Nehru and Mr. Krishna Menon were very eager to be
friends, China turned out to be a menace, obliging India to utilise a good part
of its meager resources on shopping for weapons from outside to defend itself.
Since then, all these years, the diplomats of both sides have all the patience
and leisure to talk about how to talk, never coming to the substance of the
dispute. So long as the Communist Party of China controls the state, we cannot
probably expect any different behaviour on its part. If we are keen to get out
of this bleeding dispute, we must make China accept arbitration or judgement by
the International Court of Justice.
Further, while India had
only a brief spell of nationwide mobilisation of people for independence and
then settled back to normalcy after independence, China, on the other hand, had
been mobilised and underwent several traumatic social transformations and
national campaigns in the name of several radical and violent revolutions.
Later, the Chinese focused on some grand national projects and worked for them
hard and with discipline. Thus, as a nation, China has been more mobilized and
tumultuous than India. At the same time, Deng Xiaoping's reforms did not alter
the tight grip of the central government on any of their autonomous regions and
later, he launched ‘Four Modernisations’ that made China a world power. In the
first two decades of our century, as estimated by a knowledgeable bureaucrat
like M.K. Narayan, China had achieved an over 800% increase in overall trade
volume, an unimaginable increase in GDP, and had lifted nearly 800 million
Chinese people out of poverty.
In the case of erstwhile USSR i.e. the
Soviet Union in 1986-87, the General Secretary of the Communist Party, Mikhail Gorbachev had to admit the
need for launching ‘glasnost’ meaning
transparency in policy reforms for restructuring (‘perestroika’) of the political and economic systems. He recognized that there
were threats from several ethnic regions primarily from the Russian Federation
and in general, by the "parade of sovereignties." Finally, the
Russian Federation alone emerged as a power and it is aiming to become a ‘Grand
Russia’. For ‘strategic reasons, it has maintained close state-to-state
relations with India, but never considered people-to-people relationships as
worthy of pursuing.
A New Foreign
Policy:
It is interesting to see
China declaring its foreign policy as polycentric competition and cooperation
(and not international peace and friendship) in international relations so as
to continue its national development and expand its hegemony over the world as
the most powerful nation. To maintain its growth, it wants other states to
continue to accept its exports. For its national development, it practices soft
economic imperialism. We are better suited to adopt such a policy than China,
instead of trying to play the role of a ‘Big Power’ and making expensive diplomatic
efforts to squeeze into the UN Security Council with Veto power.
The present trends might
lead to a contradiction in our foreign policy. Any foreign policy has to be
dictated by a country’s current geo-political and economic necessities and, fortunately,
India finds itself in a more favourable situation, thanks to the remittances of
the non-resident Indians and dues as GST by our dynamic private sector in the
urban areas. While admitting that we have to live as one family on this planet
with a common destiny, we cannot, at the same time, join power Groups like G-7,
G-20, BRICS, and Quad or enter into bi-lateral accords so as to tilt the
balance of regional power in our favour. Such a nationalist power game might be
enjoyable to our diplomats, as it justifies their existence. But, firstly, if
Indians become nationalistic, then millions of People of Indian Origin (PIOs)
and NRIs who are being elected as prime ministers and presidents in many
foreign countries would lose their credibility and trust, as their loyalty
would be suspected. Secondly, today's world is different. Already, the present
big powers and the former superpowers are feeling powerless to bring peace and
development to all people living on this Earth.
Hence,
instead, we should operate whole-heartedly and entirely through the UN bodies
and Agencies and intensify inter-dependent economic relations with all the
states. The costly diplomatic establishments set up directly in 173 countries
are unnecessary, and instead, we can work though UN Agencies operating in those
countries. All state departments should directly encourage people-to-people
friendship and cooperation across the world. All interstate disputes should be
quickly brought before international or regional courts and tribunals, without
leaving the national diplomats to drag them on for decades. The UN General
Assembly should be the forum to convince all states to commit themselves to a
total disarmament starting with the nuclear arsenal. International civil
society organisations and other NGOs are to be respected for their concern for
the welfare of entire humankind and a secure planet.
Why is It Too
Late for Nationalism?
The temptation to make all Indians nationalists is impractical today for the following reasons:
1. While human relations are going global in an irreversible manner, the political states in general are worried that the people living within their borders are gradually going out of their control. The way the states are treating their residents has become a matter of concern not only for the neighbouring states but also for other powerful states.
2. Now, there is an active worldwide public opinion, as expressed by the international independent civil society organizations. The latter are not under the influence and control of any particular state.
3. There are international Conventions and Treaties that every state must respect as they emphatically hold the safety and security of a human being of paramount importance to the international community. Just as citizens respect national laws, the states also should respect International Laws and Conventions. Intervention for humanitarian reasons, even the use of force on occasions by the UN Agencies is almost universally accepted. Defying states are often faced with boycotts of trade, export and import of essential goods and services by a majority of states. Many states are still dependent upon foreign aid. Niger, the African state is facing such a situation now.
4. There are the UN General Assembly Resolutions that advise and guide the national policies in the interest of peace and justice and also condemn wanton aggression, as in the case of Russia right now.
5. There are international and regional Councils and Courts, which judge the conduct of the states towards their citizens in terms of Fundamental Human Rights.
6. The individual
residents are wanting to live in affinity and cooperate with those who are
outside the borders. The states are not able to control all their
communications and transactions, as we see in the case of state actions against
terrorist organisations and the exchange of crypto-currencies.
Way Forward Is
More Internal Democracy:
As a reaction to the above
strong and inevitable globalising trends, state bureaucracies and political
leaders are likely to develop a strategy of resistance by glorifying the state
and its performance. Nationalism is like opium fed by ambitious political
leaders. Many elected representatives accept this since they share a small part
of the cake of enjoying power for short periods. Such a regime is supported by
the conservative elements in society that are apprehensive of all new social
transformations that are fast taking place in society. The political leaders
adopt majoritarianism in making decisions and impose authoritarianism that
reduces individual freedoms. Nationalism would mean searching for unity,
effacing diversity and showing intolerance towards minorities. Consequently,
divisions and conflicts among various parts of India would grow, as we see in
the case of North-Eastern regions.
Further, we learn from experience that nationalism does not necessarily
lead to people’s development. It is precisely this nationalistic spirit that
makes us overestimate the level of our development. Large economies based on
‘paper wealth’ and high GDP growth rates without commensurate growth in
productivity do not necessarily lead to Human Development and Social
Development. Tax money is spent on prestigious and glamorous projects like
buildings, monuments, statues and ceremonies, and diplomatic courtesies, rather
than for people's education and health. There is no universal social security
system just to make people wait to receive freebies from generous leaders. For
example, for the last 75 years, the citizens have not been trusted and are not
found capable of developing an early research and production base for defensive
arms.
Empowerment of the citizen is more important in a democracy than
empowerment of the state. Democracy is meant for the development of all
residents in all aspects of development. Human development means concretely
unhindered expression of freedoms and faculties inherent in a human being.
Hence, we need to expand the meaning of Human Development, initially defined by
UNDP in narrow quantitative aspects for survival; and the scope of Development
Goals are to be subjected to and be in harmony with sustaining human
development.
The state and the political parties alone cannot be left to achieve all these universal humanistic values. It is possible only through citizen activism through civil societies and their interactive collaboration beyond national boundaries.
0 Comments