By: Ahmed Butt
A dramatic challenge to a state is found in nationalist movements. More than 900 million people belong to 233 national subgroups around the world. The demands from these nationalist groups are not new after all, World War I was fought over such nationalist demands. Yet, the end of the Cold War and the demise of multiethnic states like the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, along with the communications revolution of fax and Internet, have led to increasing demands by nationalist movements.
Nationalist movements identify more with a particular culture than with a state. Having experienced discrimination of persecution, many of these groups are now taking collective action in support of national self-determination. Who is to tell the Bosnians, the Palestinians, Kurds, Druze, Scots, Basques, Quebecois and Bretons that they are not a people and are not entitled to self-determination?
Yet not all nationalists want the same thing. A few seek separation from the state, preferring to forge their own destiny in a new, independent state. Some prefer irredentism, which is a policy of not just breaking away from an established state but joining with fellow nationalists in other states and creating with them another state or joining with another state that is populated by fellow nationalists. Others seek solutions in federal arrangements, hoping to win guarantees of autonomy within an established state, and still others seek not much more than official recognition of their unique status, including the right to use their national language and practice their own religion. Irrespective of the demands, each nationalist group poses a threat to a state to some extent. We’ve experienced the examples of Bengali Language Movement or the issue of Qadiyanis, which proves that even the most least demands of a nationalist group can challenge the sovereignty of a state.
Nationalism provided the foundation of politics in the 19th and 20th centuries. It basically emerged as a core principle in Europe during the 19th century, wherein the masses identify with their common past, their language, customs, and practices. The end of World War I provides us the evidence that how nationalism is a challenge to a state, as we saw critical changes in international relations during that period. First, three European empires were strained and finally broke up during or near the end of World War I. With those empires went the conservative social order of Europe; in its place emerged a proliferation of nationalisms. Russia exited the war in 1917, as revolution raged within its territory. The czar was overthrown and eventually replaced by not only a new leader but a new ideology, based on nationalism, that would have profound implications for the rest of the 20th century. The Austro-Hungarian Empire also broke apart, replaced by Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, part of Yugoslavia, and part of Romania. All these states emerged on the principle of nationalism. Also reconfigured was the Ottoman Empire. Having gradually lost power throughout the 19th century, the Ottomans were allied with the Triple Alliance powers. Their defeat resulted in the final demise of the Ottomans. Arabia rose against Turkish rule, and British forces occupied Jerusalem and Baghdad. A diminished Turkey was the successor state. The end of the empires produced proliferating nationalism. In fact, one of President Woodrow Wilson of America’s Fourteen Points in the treaty ending World War I called for self-determination, the right of national groups to self-rule. In short, we can say that the collapse of the three empires i.e., Russia by revolution, the Austro-Hungarian Empire by dismemberment and the Ottoman Empire by external wars and internal turmoil led to a resurgence of nationalism.
Certain general assumptions regarding human nature underlie nationalist theorizing, namely, that human beings are intrinsically social-cultural creatures, either born or accepted into specific cultural communities that both shape them and are sustained by them, in and through which they find much of their meaning and significance, and to which they inevitably owe certain duties and loyalties. These inform but do not define nationalism, for they may apply to any cultural cluster. When, how and why any set of people come to conceive of themselves as a part of the “imagined community” called a nation is one of the great questions posed by the nationalist phenomenon. What’s bound is that nationalism, whatever appeal it makes to culture, is a political ideology and so always assumes political objectives, most centrally that the self-conceived nation be politically established, consolidated, preserved and defended. The inherently political character of nationalism explains its apparent inseparability from the modern state, which remains the central arena of contemporary political action and intention.
Separation of East Pakistan and The Khalistan Movement provides the evidence that nationalism is a challenge to a state. In case of Seperation of East Pakistan, Pakistan itself was an odd creation with the two parts, East and West Pakistan separated by more than 1,000 miles. The two parts of Pakistan shared few cultural and social traditions aside from Islam. The fusion of east and west on the idea of Islam led to the frustration of Bengali nationalism. The lack of common bonds was accentuated when political figures in the West seized control of the new state, dominating both political and economic power. The military governments that gave very little attention to political demands in East Pakistan only promoted discord. As a result, the resentment in East Pakistan gradually grew. The issue was sparked basically in 1948, when the Government of the Dominion of Pakistan made Urdu as the sole national language, sparking extensive protests among the Bengali-speaking majority of East Bengal. The movement reached its climax over the series if time through multiple different events including 1970 General Elections and the developments in West Pakistan. By 1970, sentiments for national unity had weakened in East Pakistan to the extent that constant conflict between the two Wings dramatically erupted into mass civil disorder. The Bangladesh Liberation War took place in 1971, which established the sovereign nation of Bangladesh. East Pakistan in 1971 was simultaneously a battleground for many different kinds of violent conflicts that enclosed militant rebellion, mob violence, military quelling on a civilian population, urban terrorism to full-scale war between India and Pakistan. It witnessed large-scale atrocities, the exodus of 10 million refugees and the displacement of 30 million people. Bengali nationalists declared independence on 26th March 1971.
Similarly, if we discuss the Khalistan Movement, Sikhs are among the various religious groups present in India. They are also one of the many minorities who have suffered since India’s independence in 1947. Since then, problems including the keeping and maintaining of its identity, growing fears of assimilation by Hindu fundamentalists and religious or we can say spiritual discrimination has surrounded the Sikh minority. The events of 1984 have also presented a new development in the Sikh identity, notably the emergence of a separate and nationalist Sikh identity. What has caused the sensation of insecurity and therefor the unexpected rise of Sikh nationalistic identity inside post-independent India? Apart from religious and political groups which have influenced the development and enlargement of the Sikh identity, the chosen policies by India’s Hindu-dominated political Center throughout the critical stages of the Punjab problem, including the use of both coercive and non-coercive methods have considerably contributed to the development of a Sikh nationalist identity, as well as influenced the growing turmoil, dissatisfaction and bloodshed faced by several members of the Sikh community. The lack of minority-sensitive laws aimed in the protection of minorities India have significantly contributed to an insecure and aggressive minority leading to the formation and development of a separate Sikh nationalist identity. The presence of political and religious groups during the time has provided Sikhs the building blocks in recreating and strengthening of their identity. Each group has contributed to the modification and development seen in the Sikh minority and has provided for several Sikhs a new sense of security and development. Although the Sikhs were successful in rebuilding their identity, the process has also resulted in the disconnection and separation of the Sikh identity from the general Indian identity, producing a more subjective or nationalistic sort of identity. The process on the rise of Sikh Nationalism had been intimately tied not solely to Sikh history but more so through the Sikh experience in post-independent, democratic India. Keeping in view of all these factors, the Sikh community launched the Khalistan movement in 1971, and their goal is to liberate Indian Punjab and make a sovereign state, Khalistan.
Some of these nationalist challenges lead to civil conflict and even war as the case of World War I illustrates. Political scientist Jack Synder, in his book From Voting to Violence: Democratization and National Conflict, has identified the casual mechanism whereby nationalists challenge the state on the basis of the legitimacy of their language, culture, or religion. Elites within these nationalist movements, particularly when countervailing institutions are weak, may be able to incite the masses to war.
