Imagining nationalism

In the last one month, different incidents and protests at the Jawaharlal Nehru University have provoked us to question the meaning of nationalism all over again. Photo courtesy: The Quint

So far, this word and its interpretation had perhaps been the few words that had instigated and fueled wars across borders, but in February this year, this very word and its interpretation sparked one on the same side of the border. While religion can easily be that word, this time around, however, it was nationalism.

It’s highly improbable that you’ve missed the ‘anti-national’ label that’s been accorded in plenty in the last one month after an incident at a government university in the national capital kicked-off a political war. In case you missed it, here’s a quick fact-checked backgrounder.

But what is nationalism?

Nationalism is not an uncontroversial word. While it is seen as a derivative of the word nation, there are two schools of thought about looking at it. The first, the primordial school of thought takes an evolutionary route and looks at nationalism as the idea that yields the contemporary form of groups or societies that people subscribe to so as to ensure survival; what adds value to the idea of nationalism is that it is thought to be emotional and durable, especially because it draws on a common history, even ancestry.

The second, the so-called modernist idea says nationalism is what is invoked in societies that have a self-sustaining industrial economy and a central authority that can ensure unity while employing certain common or central norms or languages. It essentially looks at it more as an idea used for nation-building. That’s where the idea of ‘imagined communities’ as articulated first by Benedict Anderson comes in for nationalism then is essentially a project that attempts to draw on individual and societal patriotic currents.

So then, did nation come first or nationalism? To me, right now, these interpretations tend to suggest that nation is what nationalism results in and re-enforces. Perhaps one could argue both ways and maybe it is another chicken-egg conundrum.

Does patriotism equal nationalism?

So nationalism wants to draw on patriotism and build further and patriotism by itself may be re-enforced by nationalism, but these related words still represent disparate meanings. While patriotism is a sentiment and has an organic quotient attached to it, nationalism is a introduced idea that builds on an identity. Nationalism requires instruments such as a national anthem or a national day to unify people and to keep on etching the idea of the nation.  

Patriotism is innate and it just grows on its own. If it is not entirely selfless, it is certainly unselfish. Nationalism though may ask for something in return, for it is assumed that the nation-state is also a purveyor of certain essential things. What further adds to this mix is the social contract of citizenship in the post-Westphalian world where sovereignty and self-governance are norms. While sovereignty promises to promise freedom from foreign interference or intervention, citizenship means that for all rights and freedoms promised to the individual, there are a ‘reasonable’ number of directive principles as well. Discussing the validity of these is not the objective of this essay, however, this essay does acknowledge the need for citizenship in the modern world order and the fact that the idea of nationalism (and citizenship) may thus be subject to the central authority.

Multiple realities and the post national

Perhaps, like in most cases, here too a reality exists in a complex overlap of it all, since the primordial seems to have merged with the modernist in an age where the religious, economic and demographic divides are as evident as you have the patience of observing them.

Where an individual like me in an urban setting is drawn to the idea of post-nationalism (not non-nationalism) in the global yet local ever-connected world, there are individuals and families in rural regions who are now beginning to feel the prominence of the nation as they are better connected with other parts of the country and as they emerge out from regional or local shadows.

The university at the backdrop of this particular incident is said to be under a Leftist strong-hold, where as the central Indian government currently tilts to the right. Photo credit: JNU 

It’s also important here to note that how (divided) voices from urban or sub-urban spaces on social media appear to get a shot in the arm from the absence of voices from rural settings on social and mainstream media. Thus, this makes the premise of the any debate (in this case around nationalism) appear smaller than it is. Therefore, while the debate may tend to represent many voices, it still may not represent all voices. We must also note that there are attempts made to label these debates as only being stirred by ‘pseudo-intellectuals’ while adding that the common population is not concerned by it; but that argument must always be treated with serious doubts, for in most instances (especially ones that do not comprise economic factors and immediate security), the common population is too engrossed in the daily act of survival that raising debates may not even cross their mind, and if it does it may come way behind ‘roti, kapda and makaan’ (food, clothes and shelter) in their list of daily priorities. But then again, haven’t polity and politics been spheres the elites (or at least the privileged) have always called the shots?

Getting back, when I use the word post-national, I in no way use it as a argument against nationalism, on the contrary I use it in the context where it may be seen as a probably superlative of nationalism. It to me describes an idea where while the national is very dear to the individual, its relevance has merged with the presence of global or supranational entities like say, the European Union or ASEAN and the deep reach of transnational and multinational organisations. While domestic politics, the contemporary international order that celebrates sovereignty and the uneven spread of education and wealth ensure that the nation-state will remain very relevant, growing global inter-connections, trade pacts and joint efforts also signify that other groupings also acquire greater relevance. Perhaps, a supranational entity like the European Union then could be seen as a primordial evolution of the nation into another bigger grouping that then employs modernist grouping-building techniques. Either way, the significant point to note for the current context is that India thrives in multiple realities and to label them all under a particular kind of nationalism is not only a case of mistaken purpose, but also an unwelcome task. 

The nationalism of a Mini Cooper driving management executive in New Delhi may never be the same as that of a farmer in drought-hit Maharashtra, but then again, neither of those nationalisms may be wrong, and nor their distinct (and perhaps invisible) interpretations and manifestations of it.

Distinctions we must question

So, on a bigger stage when talking about more than one nation, while this debate may also be seen as a burgeoning disagreement between the idea of nationalism and supra-nationalism in the modern age, it definitely must be seen as a rub between the varied ideas within the nation about that idea of nationalism in question. Clearly, it has also grown into one about ‘patents on nationalism’ to freedom of expression. But some more distinctions that will help approach the subject better include:

1. The state is not the same as the government.

2. Nationalism is not the same as patriotism.

3. Order is not the same as justice.

4. Fiction is not the same as facts.

Will this debate end?
‘Imagined communities’ have long existed and will continue to; only the unit of their realisation (or analysis for social scientists) is expected to change with time. And as long as they exist, debates around topics such as what nationalism entails will always continue, for no one can have set of questions to test it. And as long as those debates thrive in peace, India, or any nation-state (or any other grouping) for that matter will be making some form of progress. Until then, it may be better off to establish that while nationalism may cover a similar set of ideals, there may be various exclusive subsets to that which may co-exist in harmony and that to question any of them without valid reason may yield nothing of value. 

The road to Refugia

Yazidi families fleeing an attack by the Islamic State near the Iraq border. The number of forcibly displaced people today stands at over 59.5 million - roughly equal to the population of Italy. Photo credit: Reuters

Can we carve out a piece of land that refugees can call home? That’s a question that many are discussing, thanks to the buzz created around the idea by real estate millionaire Jason Buzi with his Refugee Nation project. What makes this discussion so urgent is the fact despite advances in the spheres of economy, technology, human rights and academics, the number of refugees around the world has just kept on growing. That number of forcibly displaced people today stands at over 59.5 million – roughly equal to the population of Italy.

The immediate demand for attention and action comes as thousands feel outraged and perhaps helpless as they see a colossal people crisis unfold in various parts of the world. A substantial number also feel threatened by the same. The crisis in Europe may have gotten maximum attention, but similar issues in Southeast Asia or other parts of Africa are no less significant or pain-striking. And hence comes forward the idea of a refugee nation, as Buzi puts it.

That idea has perhaps long existed in fiction. Talk about the eco-refugees in the movies Mad Max or Water World or the idea of a new-age Noah’s Ark built by rich nations with tickets sold to the elite in the movie 2012. Well, for all its purposes, wasn’t the actual idea of Noah’s Ark also to provide refuge in a time of environmental disaster? These examples, irrespective of their existence in fiction, point to two types of insights when it comes to a refugee crisis – temporary and permanent.

While eco-refugees, like the ones climate change is perhaps creating, need permanent solutions today; the idea that a safe, temporary solution should be sought in the time of need is what perhaps guided the creation of Noah’s Ark, either in reality or as a myth. That’s the approach refugee camps take, don’t’ they? They are meant to serve as temporary shelters until the refugees can be granted permanent citizenship elsewhere or until conditions turn favourable for their return to their home country. But these are desired scenarios that seldom arrive, and often at snail’s pace, giving those temporary shelters permanent attributes.

Where these shelters exist, how they are sustained and how they evolve to integrate with society as refugees become citizens are the key questions then. Currently, they exist in recognised states like Jordan, Italy, Greece, Tanzania among many others. They are supported by the national governments, international organisations like the United Nations and non-governmental bodies and charities. The maximum stress, however, is often on the national government and these resources often don’t match the demand.

A refugee society-state

What this idea of a refugee nation does is that it answers these questions in different ways while also throwing up possible scenarios. The assumption is, those shelters – now permanent in nature – must exist on a separate territory that can be used to form a new state.

Further, this territory and the people should be sustained with the help of donations from the rich – states, people or companies, while the refugees take up tasks most attuned to their skills, for refugees are also people with skills and education, and some are doctors and engineers too. We tend to club them homogenously and often also mistakenly just call them migrants. So they can work there, earn a living and form a part of a refugee society that evolves into this accommodating, cosmopolitan society that takes in refugees with ease, as and when they arrive in the future (ideally that number will organically go down). Buzi is aiming for a permanent, sustainable and universal solution with this idea. So, this would be home then. Essentially, adding to the meaning of the word refugee – for now Refugia (a term coined by Professor Robin Cohen of the International Migration Institute) is a permanent home for the refugees. So either, the nature of the way we use the word changes or its meaning becomes larger.

People from the Rohingya community collect water to drink at a refugee camp in Myanmar. While the crisis in Europe has gotten maximum attention, the people's crisis is unfortunately much more universal than it appears. Photo credit: AP 

But what else changes?

A change in the usage of the word will more importantly correspondingly change the way we respond to it. While, the idea of a refugee nation is stimulating, it must grow into much more than a survivor’s camp. Can it have a permanent structure by itself? Should it?

In fact, what is primitively essential to acknowledge is that, in a lucid form, a nation as such already exists; for a nation is a large body of people with a shared history or culture, inhabiting a particular territory. Currently that territory is fluidic and is dispersed across states around the world. To consolidate that territory into one mass, and to bring those people to that mass is a legitimate response to mitigate the crisis, but it seems unlikely to be a long-term solution to it. There’s need for innovation in responses to this bludgeoning refugee crisis, and as the ‘Airbnb for refugees’ initiative shows, that innovation is happening. It is imperative to recognise that these innovations help deal with the crisis, not solve it at the source. And the problems at that source arise from hardships entrenched in socio, political and economic grounds, among others.

But for immediate responses, I vote for the creation of a refugee station, rather than a refugee nation. Without pre-conditions, it should be welcoming and serve as a platform to provide urgent security of all kinds, support to re-integrate with society and confidence to find home in the long-term. A station that is born under the aegis of the United Nations rather than as charity of a private kind, as Professor Cohen suggests. While the funds can come from donations, the efficacy in its functioning can only be derived from a principled approach embedded in perhaps a partnership of the public and the private. They’ll need to be a setup of governance quite akin to the one of federalism for self-governance to flourish or else this may end up being just another refugee camp. Freedom is what people are after – political, social and economic – let’s not forget that.

Where will this territory be and how will it be procured? These are questions that need much discussion, to ensure ease of accessibility and sustainability as well. Also, this Refugia must not just serve as the mirage of an oasis that attracts refugees, but be a station to help and assist the ones in need, irrespective of existing state or creed. Validation would be another major process again, hurting the pace of settlement. This is an area that needs urgent innovation and rethinking.

Perhaps the United Nations could finally nail the search and finally become a wholesome, combined nation in itself. And would that not be tangible proof of a post-national world? It’ll have to be – post-national and transnational. And when it comes to opening the doors of this station, it must be important to acknowledge the meaning and difference in the words migrants and refugees and to recognise that both these words, at the end of the day, comprise people.

The perils of proposal

As Alexander Betts points out, the premise of the idea of a refugee nation is exclusion, not inclusion. What a blow could that be to the notion of refugee integration and what signal would it send to the perpetrators? One that they can create havoc, force people out and be rest-assured they’ll find their way to this safe, welcoming place? The creation of such a nation/station will have to go hand-in-hand with that of fighting the causes at their roots, aggressively. For this station will also serve as the best incubation pad to come up methods to tackle the crisis at home.

There are more threats. Would the shared experiences of the refugees create harmony and brotherhood, or could the disparate cultural and religious understandings lead to conflicts that threaten the existence of this land of peace? Also, would it not create another class across the world? A class of people that donates and thinks of itself as saviours of this oppressed refugee class. But this one may not be that big a problem in the future, for such corrupt attitudes to charity already exist, promoting what Slavoj Zizek calls cultural capitalism.

Would you help form it?

Despite the perils, if an agency were to ensure the sustainability of such a station to mitigate this people’s crisis, I would. Would you, as long as you are assured of the transparency and accountability of the project? Accountability towards refugees, and you, and states too. For those national governments where these people are coming from shall continue to have stake in this crisis. But would this idea also not raise doubts about the promotion of this charity industry? Those questions are as valid as the search for responses to the crisis, and until we find them, such innovations must not only be debated but also implemented methodically with caution, perhaps with institutional help.

For whatever the nature of world politics, innovation and constructivism are what shall see us through. How we define and employ them may ultimately seal the deal. For, it’s not possible to imagine my thought processes if I were a refugee (it may also be a cruel test), but if I were to attempt to respond to the idea of this refugee station, the answer would be a definite, “Yes, take me there”. But then, I would still seek my home, and there are reasonable doubts if Refugia will be able to provide one in the long-term.