In this Pinpoint series, we have talked about
Nationalism from various perspectives, introduced
the problem of scalability of human relationships,
made a distinction between territorial and
civilizational nationalism, briefly examined
the “world without borders” that people
like George Soros advocate for, and then compared
that proposition with what Sri Aurobindo called
the ideal of human unity.
In between, we had a couple of episodes on
narratives and game theory.
But I realized that much of it had become
quite dense and ran the risk of becoming abstract
despite my best efforts to keep the discourse
as tangible as possible.
Therefore, I thought that it would be a good
idea to start from the basics again and try
to integrate all the diverse themes that we
have touched upon so far while answering perhaps
the most pertinent question: Does Nationalism
have a future?
But let us turn to the past first and figure
out the foundational constituents of a nation.
In other words, what makes a nation, and what
distinguishes it from other nations?
To cut all the academic clutter that has accumulated
around the concept, thanks to the failure
of the Westphalian model of nation-states
that gave us imperialism, the world wars,
cold war and so on, we can say that the things
that shape a nation most profoundly are:
1.
Geography
2.
Culture
3.
History
4.
Collective aspirations
Geography is, of course, the most fundamental
factor that shapes a nation.
In what constitutes perhaps 95% of written
history, geography pretty much ruled the destiny
of nations.
Geographical factors dictated the nature of
military strategy, the extent of cultural
intermixing, and the degree of isolation of
a region.
The Pacific and Atlantic Oceans kept the Native
American people safe and isolated from the
rest of the world for a long time but once
technology made it possible for Europeans
to cross the ocean, the same strength turned
into a bane as these indigenous communities
were no match to the cunning as well as the
superior weaponry of the invaders, not to
mention their low immunity to European diseases.
Similarly, Britain was an unimportant island
divided among thirty primitive tribes always
at each other’s throats before the Roman
empire unified them as subjects.
The Britons were quite primitive compared
to the continental Europeans because the island
was physically isolated from the rest of the
continent.
Geography has a profound influence on the
second factor, culture.
Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, remained
culturally underdeveloped due to the insurmountable
physical barriers to intra-continental travel
and a dearth of navigable rivers, which prevented
African communities from intermixing freely
and developing a sophisticated culture and
technology of their own.
They had a desert to the North and the major
oceans to the East, South, and West.
It is interesting that though Africa is the
second largest continent in the world, it
has the shortest coastline.
To make matters worse, the coastline is not
indented, which makes it beautiful alright
but also ill-suited for harbouring ships,
reflected in Africa’s minimal participation
in pre-modern maritime trade.
Africa’s isolation and consequent lack of
a pervasive culture made its people vulnerable
to exploitative foreigners, who literally
enslaved them for centuries.
This brings us to the third factor I mentioned,
that is, History and as we can see the history
of the African slave trade, for instance,
has roots in the continent’s geography and
the consequent lack of a pervasive pre-modern
culture.
Even the history of slavery has interesting
patterns to observe.
In terms of demand and supply, Africa mostly
supplied female slaves to the Ottoman and
other Islamic empires for filling their harems,
leaving the Savannah with an excess of men
and children.
Later on, when Europeans got into the large-scale
slave trade, men for plantation work in the
Americas were in high demand and men became
scarce in West Africa.
In both cases, the imbalance of sexes had
cultural consequences, most notably in the
growth of polygamy.
So, the point that I am making here is that
the collective identity of a people, which
gives them a sense of nationhood, is determined
by a relentless interplay between Geography,
Culture, and History.
Having acquired a collective consciousness,
a nation stares into the abyss called the
future and makes moral, political, and cultural
choices based on the collective aspiration
of its people.
That collective aspiration is also called
civilization.
In the Indian context, the blessed geography
of the Indian sub-continent enabled trade
and commerce to thrive, allowed profound ideas
to travel across the land, and allowed for
a paradoxical mix of cultural diversity delicately
poised on the bedrock of Dharmic unity.
In my view, regaining this magical paradox
is the key to India’s future.
But where did we lose that key?
In the last 800 years, India’s history was
dominated by the violent attack on our indigenous
way of life by alien invaders, just like how
the Native Americans were under the assault
of the White Europeans in the 15th and 16th
centuries.
Added to that, the industrial revolution changed
the whole world dramatically and gave rise
to Capitalism and Communism.
Alas, we survived.
But today, when we look into the future, are
we empowered enough to actualize our collective
aspirations and civilizational goals?
Can we even verbalize these goals?
Why not, is a question that must bother all
of us.
Today, we live in a globalized world, where
it is safe to say that “No nation exists
in isolation”.
The liberal modernist view is characterized
by a disdain for national identities as the
engine of global capitalism sees the world
as a mosaic of resources and markets.
In this deeply materialistic view, national
borders are an avoidable inconvenience.
“How great would it be”, argues the die-hard
capitalist, “if the whole world had one
set of laws and tax structures to make it
easy for corporations to do business anywhere
they please and generate wealth for all”.
So what role does nationalism play in such
a world?
From the point of view of the transnational
corporations, the only use for nationalism
is that it strengthens the Nation-State - the
government - whose primary role as far as
these MNCs are concerned, is to monopolize
violence and provide a safe and secure environment
for the corporations to make money.
Anything more than that starts becoming an
inconvenience.
But from the point of view of ordinary people
anywhere in the world with some degree of
cultural rooting, nationalism is an expression
of their identity and again, their collective
aspirations.
This national identity promotes cohesiveness
in society and makes the nation stable.
This was recognized by US President Woodrow
Wilson when he coined the phrase “Right
of self-determination” in 1916.
The phrase has since been very useful to every
single genuine seeker of political freedom
as well as terrorists spreading mayhem in
the name of freedom, like in Kashmir.
It is interesting that while this coinage
was termed as a “decisive turning point
in the history of the modern world” by the
press, Wilson’s own Secretary of State,
Robert Lansing was rather distressed by it.
He wrote in his diary that the phrase would
come back to haunt the world, as it did a
few years down the line when powerful politicians
worked on redrawing the national boundaries
of Europe based on their arbitrary and half-baked
ideas of minority oppression, leading to the
dismemberment of the Habsburg Empire and the
creation of small “self-determined” states
that were duly annexed by Nazi Germany in
the following decade.
If the point is not obvious already, let me
spell it out clearly.
The Right of self-determination presents a
peculiar problem.
At what threshold of population or area, does
it become a viable option to invoke self-determination
to declare your people to be an independent
nation?
This is particularly relevant to Bharat, faced
with numerous secessionist movements often
funded by enemy nations or global religious
organizations or often both together.
The lesson to be drawn from the havoc caused
by the idea of self-determination in Europe
of the 1920s and 30s is that along with the
cohesiveness of a people, there is another
factor that must be taken into account, that
is, how capable is the nation of defending
itself?
Thus, it is in the blend of cohesiveness of
a people and the ability of that cohesive
unit to defend itself that national consciousness
emerges.
If the people of a region are incapable of
defending themselves, they will either be
annexed by an enemy state or cultivated as
a vassal state of some kind by the same enemy.
For instance, if Kashmir were to gain independence,
it would either formally join Pakistan or
be used by Pakistan to inflict more damage
on India.
Where does civilizational nationalism figure
in this scheme?
Sam Huntington defines civilization as "the
highest cultural grouping of people and the
broadest level of cultural identity people
have short of that which distinguishes humans
from other species".
Accordingly, a civilization may consist of
multiple nation-states, as is the case with
Islamic and Western civilizations.
However, for Hindus, our civilization is synonymous
with the country that is India and there is
no other country in the world today, with
the exception of Nepal, that can be considered
to be a part of the Hindu civilization.
The dismemberment of India would thus mean
the annihilation of the Indic civilization
because the smaller countries would not be
able to defend their freedom and maintain
their culture in the face of global hostile
forces - both religious and geo-political.
Let us go even further.
Why should that matter?
Because the question can only come from a
universalist premise - that is, a worldview
that does not even recognize the existence
of other worldviews, much less their desirability
- so it must be answered in a universalist
context.
The most overpowering force in the modern
world is the beast of technology.
Remember, we spoke about geography being the
foundation of a nation, and how the physical
environment shapes culture and history.
What technology has done is that it has snatched
all power from geography by isolating human
beings from their natural environment.
While this in itself is a topic for maybe
another day, but what I am getting at here
is that modern technology, by homogenizing
our physical environment and turning it artificial
is also homogenizing our culture.
Given that technology itself is culturally
neutral, it becomes an agent of cultural forces
that dominate it.
It is not surprising that modernization and
technological progress inevitably lead to
westernization.
It is not because of the inherent nature of
technology as such but that most of its levers
are in the hands of the so-called West.
The direction in which technology is headed
is determined by the cultural choices of western
civilization, which are informed by their
sense of morality.
These choices have been ecologically disastrous.
So, let us go back to the original question
I posed - “Does Nationalism have a future?”
Looks like the answer depends on the kind
of nationalism we have in mind.
Nations built on the hollow foundations of
enlightenment values are collapsing under
the weight of demographic imbalance or ecological
threats.
At the same time, we are headed towards a
future that will require the planet to take
a united stand on critical issues of ecological
sustainability and the limits of economic
growth.
Different nations speak in different voices,
but humanity will need to speak as one.
Whose voice is it going to be?
That is the real clash of civilizations.
If Bharat does not rise to the occasion, we
will not only fail our ancestors but the planet
itself.
Let me state it bluntly, Nationalism does
have a future - It is called Hindu civilizational
nationalism, which derives its ethos from
nature and allows for a paradoxical mix of
cultural diversity delicately poised on the
bedrock of Dharmic unity.
The time for imperialist arrogance and barbaric
violence is well over.
As the liberal progressive woke social justice
warrior would say, “Hello it’s the 21st
century!”
