The Peninsula Foundation

Category: Nationalism & Nation-state

  • Cinema as a tool of National narratives and Geopolitics

    Cinema as a tool of National narratives and Geopolitics

    ABSTRACT

    This paper aims to understand how world politics, the geopolitical environment in the international arena, and economic relationships between countries are portrayed in films and entertainment media. This paper attempts to understand the portrayal of the themes through varied parameters, namely, the geopolitical timeline of when the film was released, the theme or the event that the film is trying to address, the region the movie was produced in and the audience it would cater to. As films are pretty nuanced and very interpretative, these themes might overlap. Nevertheless, it will attempt to identify and understand the themes as best possible. This paper also aims to understand the active relationship between films and the various global interactions among nation-states. It will also examine the impact of these films on the foreign policy decisions made by the State and how the narratives change with changing leadership. This paper will understand films through the lens of international politics and not just as a medium of entertainment.

     

    INTRODUCTION

    Beyond the fiction of reality, there is the reality of the fiction.

    – Slavoj Žižek

    Let’s ask a simple question. How much of the reality that we live in do we see in fiction? This question seems to have a complex answer. The main reason for the existence of films is their ability to transport viewers to a world of imagination or fiction where anything can happen, unlike the rigid realities we live in. However, upon closer examination, one might find that fiction interacts with present, everyday realities and fosters an ideology within itself. Films and ideology have a deep-rooted connection, and it is impossible to analyse films without encountering the ideology they inevitably promote. This is particularly evident in films that fall under the genre of politics or political commentary. Politics is often described as a struggle for power, where ideology plays a crucial role. Films have the power to influence the masses, making them a potent tool for those in power to wield. This is why ideology is embedded in films. According to Slavoj Žižek’s documentary ‘The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology’, ideology is a socio-economic and political apparatus that is created and propagated by humans. He argues that ideology is a social reality, and attempting to escape it is also an ideology.

    Ideology has a significant impact on the superstructure, shaping our perception of political reality. Unfortunately, this often results in a distorted or biased portrayal of events that goes unchallenged due to the disclaimer that it is a work of fiction. This allows ideologies to spread without being acknowledged. Films with political themes are particularly susceptible to this, as they are shaped by the prevailing ideology of the time and place in which they are created and discussed. These films serve as a means of propagating state-sponsored ideologies, which can then be used to legitimise state propaganda. They are essentially used as a trial run to measure the public’s reaction to certain ideas before implementing them. These films function as a symbolic order, swaying public opinion in line with the desired political narrative. The depictions in these movies, being fictional, are often exaggerated and used to evoke feelings of patriotism and nationalism, making it easier for political leaders to shape the status quo in their favour.

    Films are generally regarded as a source of entertainment, but they also have a profound impact on the realities of our lives. Even movies with superhero themes, which are purely fictional, have the power to shape political realities. For instance, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, a franchise that features individuals with exceptional abilities, highlights the inability of governments to address significant issues or credible threats. These governments tend to view those who can effect change as a greater threat than the aliens themselves. This commentary reflects on the governments’ and leadership’s propensity to prioritize personal insecurities and power politics over the greater good. This, in turn, questions the relevance of democratic institutions and government, which is ironic given that the films originate from a country that has historically promoted democracy. This paper aims to explore how these films portray global politics and economic relations, and the rationale behind these depictions.

    RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POLITICS AND THE FILM INDUSTRY

    Before examining the portrayal of political institutions in films, it is important to consider the extent to which these institutions influence the film industry, as this relationship will greatly determine the narrative or nature of the films. It is crucial to understand the independence of the film industry when it comes to politics. During the Cold War era, also known as the era of ideological conflict, films played a significant role in fostering a sense of nationalism among the population. They served as an effective means of disseminating an ideology that would advantage the host country. Films became a tool of soft power, and both sides utilized them to the fullest.

    Independence Day, a motion picture released in 1996 and starring Will Smith, exemplifies the interconnection between politics and cinema. The film centres around an alien assault on Earth and the United States of America’s leadership and military’s endeavour to exact retribution and obliterate the extraterrestrial ships, thereby preventing further attacks. This reflects the ‘saviour of the world’ narrative that the United States of America champions and takes pride in. The movie’s portrayal of the United States as the epicentre of the world is strikingly evident. The Cold War period in Hollywood was greatly influenced by the United States’ aspiration for global dominance. It sought to establish US supremacy across the globe. The Cold War was a critical juncture in US political history, and it was essential to emerge victorious in ideological warfare. Consequently, the United States utilised film as a medium to rally the masses and legitimise its actions through an exalted portrayal of patriotism and nationalism. Depicting the US as the only state capable of addressing global threats was a recurring theme in these films. Although the movie is more than a decade old, it accurately portrays the nature of the international arena. It depicts the US at the centre, emphasising that the US is a superpower today and an economically advanced nation with immense financial resources and the ability to carry out military operations. However, compared to the present reality, this portrayal might not be entirely accurate, as the US is currently grappling with enormous debt and bearing significant costs for its interventions around the world.

    Nonetheless, it maintains a significant influence and directs economic ties in some manner or form. Hence, one can argue that the depiction is a fictionalized exaggeration of reality, despite the presence of some factual elements. How autonomous is the film industry -from any location or time frame- in creating or presenting narratives that challenge the established order? This study will delve into specific films as case studies and scrutinize them meticulously to glean a clearer understanding of the portrayal and to what extent it reflects the true picture of the global arena.

    Analysis

    Part 1 of the paper examined films as tools of ideological expression and explored the relationship between the film industry and the State. Moving forward, the paper will delve into regional cinema to investigate its narratives and discourses. Entertainment media has emerged as a powerful socio-political institution that wields influence over the state and individuals through the stories and ideologies it presents. Media has the capacity to depict social realities in accordance with the norms, values, and laws of society at a particular time (Zelizer and Allan, 2011). By comparing and contrasting films from different eras with the social realities of their respective times, it becomes possible to uncover the interconnections between reality and representation. During the Cold War era, films were utilized to foster domestic patriotism, thereby granting the State the legitimacy to pursue its ambitions and achieve greatness. Independence Day is an illustration of this phenomenon.

    The way in which the domestic audience receives information about foreign policy through portrayals of interstate relations is complex, and these portrayals are often influenced by state-centred bias and ideology, which can result in the transmission of biased information (Baum, 2007; Cohen, 1963; Entman, 2004; Chomsky, 1989; McChesney, 2008; McQuail, 2005). The role of the media as a discourse-producing entity and as an entity that defines the complex but symbiotic relationship between the government and the media is central. However, while the media should work independently, it is often commercially motivated and, therefore, promotes the ideas and beliefs of the status quo due to the intertwining of vested interests with the corridors of power (Bagdikian, 2004; Bettig and Hall, 2003; Norris, 1990; Vivian, 2006). This results in the media and government submitting to the interests of a small section of the community being propagated, rather than serving the socio-cultural aspect of the institution.

    In the 21st century, propaganda and ideology have become increasingly pervasive. This is due to the rise in content production that aligns with state agendas and the status quo. In India, the movie “The Kashmir Files” has sparked debates regarding whether it is a right-wing propaganda. The movie recounts the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits in Kashmir and the bloodshed that occurred during the 1990s. In today’s context, where right-wing ideologies are gaining momentum, it is evident that ideology and statecraft are interconnected. The portrayal of world and domestic politics is not devoid of an underlying ideological intent. For instance, Bollywood movies like “Raazi” and “LOC Kargil” play a crucial role in propagating India’s foreign policy stance within the domestic political arena. These movies depict India as a progressive global entity, while also propagating the Indian “Big Brother Syndrome” towards its neighbours.

    In the movie “Raazi,” released in 2018 and starring Alia Bhatt and Vicky Kaushal, an undercover RAW agent is married to a Pakistani army official to retrieve crucial information regarding Pakistani moves in Bangladesh and India in 1971. The movie portrays India as a superior state trying to liberate Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) from the “Enemy.” This theme of Indian superiority among its neighbours is prevalent in most films that deal with world and domestic politics. Similarly, the developed West promotes capitalism through films and other visual media.

    Hollywood emerged as a centre for state-sponsored and ideology-driven content during the Cold War. Movies like Wall Street, released in 1987 during an ideological conflict between the United States and the USSR, reflected capitalist ideologies and demonized the USSR and its communist system. The film depicted the ruthless and often exploitative nature of capitalism that prevailed during the 1980s. One of the lead characters, Gordon Gekko, portrayed by Michael Douglas, advocated for the greed and highly capitalistic nature of businessmen. In the context of the Cold War, this promoted a specific type of capitalist ideology to counter the Soviet or communist threat. The glorification of the businessman and the discontentment of the businessman played a significant role in the domestic economic output. The 1980s glorified greed, and this movie accurately represented it. Wall Street explicitly conveyed the notion that morality should not be prioritized over money. The film also featured a speech by Gordon Gekko, in which he declared, “Greed is good.” Movies like this projected a sense of American exceptionalism in the political and economic sense.

    “Don’t Look Up” is a satirical film released in 2022 that critiques the global response to the impending climate crisis. Although the movie aimed to address the issue on a worldwide scale, it primarily focused on Western perspectives. A film that seeks to tackle an international issue should address it on a more comprehensive level. The film, produced in the United States and released on an Over-The-Top (OTT) platform, failed to address the problem it intended to address due to the country’s state-centred ideology and propaganda, which portrays the United States as the saviour of the world. Even though countries like Russia and India were mentioned, the film’s Western bias was evident in the portrayal of these countries as technologically inadequate in stopping the comet from colliding with Earth. This bias is also reflected in movies produced globally, where the notion that national interest takes precedence over all else is a recurring theme.

    Therefore, it can be asserted with confidence that when motion pictures address world politics and economic relationships either currently or historically, the narrative is not unconnected to the state’s agenda. It is permeated with ideology that continually resurfaces. The only solution is the establishment of an autonomous media institution. It is crucial to distinguish between art and the state, as art has proven to be revolutionary in the past. The art produced in India during its quest for independence embodies that essence of truth and authenticity which appears to be lacking in today’s profit-driven, capitalistic world. It is vital to view things objectively, removing the tint of ideology, and acknowledge reality for what it is. This is where the political economy comes into play, exposing the exploitative, biased, and dismissive workings of the industry and institution. Numerous academic studies have examined and concluded that films have significantly influenced the public’s perspective on the State and its actions, making a thorough analysis of contemporary films even more necessary. In a world where false information spreads rapidly, independent media is indispensable.

     

    Feature Image Credit:  Wikimedia Commons
    Scene from Dr Zhivago depicting the Cossacks attacking peaceful demonstrators, a prelude to the Russian Revolution.  Dr Zhivago was a book written by Boris Pasternack, with the plot set in the last days of the Second World War and the break out of the Russian revolution. The book was banned in the USSR, was smuggle out into Europe and translated into English and other European languages. It was made into a classic movie by David Lean during the peak of the Cold War. The movie became a weapon in the cultural component of the Cold War, for its depiction of a totalitarian tendency inherent in the Russian revolution from the start. Boris Pasternack was awarded the Nobel prize (for his book ‘And Quite flows the Don’) but refused to receive it due to the pressure of the ideological  contest between the communist USSR and the capitalist West.    

    Kashmir Files poster Image: koimoi.com

    Raazi poster Image: Mumbai Mirror  

    Bibliography

    Bagdikian, Ben H. 2004. The New Media Monopoly. Boston: Beacon. https://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Media_and_Free_Culture/The_New_Media_Monopoly-Ben_H_Bagdikian.pdf.

    BAUM, MATTHEW A. 2007. “Soft News and Foreign Policy: How Expanding the Audience Changes the Policies.” Japanese Journal of Political Science 8 (1): 115–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1468109907002502.

    Bettig, Ronald V., and Jeanne Lynn Hall. (2003) . Big Media, Big Money : Cultural Texts and Political Economics. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

    Chomsky, Noah. 1991. “Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies, Noam Chomsky. 1989. Sough End Press, Boston, MA. 432 Pages. ISBN: 0-89608-366-7. $16.00.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 11 (3): 183–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/027046769101100328.

    Cohen, Bernard C. 1963. The Press and Foreign Policy. The American Historical Review. https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/69.3.805.

    Entman, Robert. 2005. “Robert M. Entman. Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2003. .Public Opinion Quarterly 69 (2): 324–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfi017.

    Mcchesney, Robert Waterman . 2008. The Political Economy of Media : Enduring Issues, Emerging Dilemmas. New York: Monthly Review Press.

    McQuail, Denis . 2005. McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. Sage Publications Ltd., London. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1839060.

    Norris, Pippa. 2002. “Studying the Media and Politics in Britain: A Tale of Two Literatures?” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 4 (2): 359–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856x.t01-1-00009.

    Vivian, John. 2006. The Media of Mass Communication. Allyn & Bacon.

    Zelizer, Barbie, and Stuart Allan. 2011. Journalism after September 11. Taylor & Francis.

     

  • Inculcating Pride In the People: Can This Be The Way Forward?

    Inculcating Pride In the People: Can This Be The Way Forward?

    Atmanirbharta, self-reliance, is a complex idea. India has strived for it since its Independence. Colonial rule had caused a deterioration in India’s socio-economic conditions which led to mass poverty.

    In a recent interview, Mr. Nripen Mishra, Chairperson of the Committee to construct the Ram Janmabhumi Temple said, `Our youth are very sensitive to the call that India must become a big power  … I think we have to inject this … the temple as one more reason for being proud’.

    Clearly, the ruling establishment has set a goal of inculcating a sense of pride among the citizens, especially the youth. Building the grand Ram Janambhumi Temple is one more way of doing that. So were the building of the tallest statue, a grand Central vista, Parliament House, etc..

    Atmanirbharta and Vishwaguru

    The slogans of Atmanirbharta and India as Vishwaguru have been used continuously to inculcate pride. The package of Rs. 22 lakh crore announced in May 2020 soon after the start of the pandemic was called Atmanirbhar. Greater self-reliance is sought by raising customs duties since at least 2017. Reminds one of the 1960s ideas that Indian industries need protection from imports. India is currently heavily dependent on the import of armament. So, indigenous defense production is sought to be increased to reduce this dependence and also to enable exports to earn foreign exchange.

    But, if we are dependent on others for critical supplies, are we already Vishwaguru? Maybe atmanirbharta could make us Vishwaguru in the future. Are we doing the right things to achieve it

    The `Vishwa guru’ status is currently claimed on the basis of soft power, like, yoga and film music. In economic terms we claim to be the fastest-growing large economy and that our production has surpassed that of our colonial master, Britain, to make us the 5th largest world economy. But the true measure of prosperity is per capita income which is abysmally low. For the poor and unemployed what does being vishwaguru mean?

    Premature claims of being vishwaguru breed complacency. Do other nations accept our claim? In January 2021 at WEF the PM announced that the world could learn from India how to handle the pandemic. By March, the country suffered grievously in the second wave.

    Self-Reliance

    Atmanirbharta, self-reliance, is a complex idea. India has strived for it since its Independence. Colonial rule had caused a deterioration in India’s socio-economic conditions which led to mass poverty. India lagged way behind the advanced countries in 1947. To gain independence, the national movement used the idea of self-reliance to raise people’s consciousness against colonization. Gandhi suggested `Swaraj’ or self-rule and said, `There are no people on earth who would not prefer their own bad government to the good government of an alien power’. This idea persisted among the leadership after independence since India had to contend with neo-colonialism and given its backwardness, India depended on other nations for aid, technology, etc.

    The notion of self-reliance had to be differently interpreted in a different context. In a globalizing world, it may be in the nation’s interest to import in a big way and exchange ideas with others. But, if other nations try to capture their markets, as they often do, self-reliance may require protecting the home market.

    Globalization and Atmanirbharta

    Is globalization consistent with Atmanirbharta? Colonization was also globalization. Political independence does not imply insularity but the ability to deal with other nations to serve the national interest. India gained considerable autonomy in policy to pursue a path in its self-interest through industrialization, development of social and physical infrastructure, etc. The public sector and a reasonable technology base were developed to gain a modicum of economic independence. Pressures from the international financial institutions to follow their agenda or to allow consumerism were warded off till 1980.

    The big shift came in 1991 with the new economic policies which were imposed by the IMF as conditionalities. Atmanirbharta which was slowly eroded post the mid-1970s got breached.

    Can Borrowing Lead to Atmanirbharta?

    In a globalizing world, dealing with other nations as equals requires a rapid generation of technology and socially relevant knowledge. This is not possible without a strong education and R&D infrastructure which we are lacking in.

    The government has reversed direction since 2017 and is attempting greater self-reliance. But, is the strategy for achieving it right? In a globalizing world, dealing with other nations as equals requires a rapid generation of technology and socially relevant knowledge. This is not possible without a strong education and R&D infrastructure which we are lacking in. The government claims that the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 will help in this direction. But its emphasis on inviting the top foreign universities to come to India, something UGC is pushing, can only further undermine indigenous strengths.

    Schemes to get foreign faculty and borrow syllabi from foreign universities have existed but they undermine Indian academia’s autonomy. India has long had faculty members who earned their degrees abroad. If that could not impart dynamism to Indian institutions would the recent steps succeed? The idea that originality can be copied is a contradiction in terms. Even if some good foreign Universities do come, they can only be a shadow of the original.

    It would also relegate Indian institutions and academia to second-rate status. Foreign faculty will only come on privileged terms not available to Indian academics. The lesson for good students would be to go abroad and from there return to Indian institutions. That would deprive Indian institutions of good students for research thereby adversely impacting research in India. Further, India has its own unique problems that are unlikely to be the concerns of foreign institutions and academics.

    The change in focus of Indian institutions would further undermine the generation of relevant knowledge, the absence of which has been a cause of the lack of dynamism in Indian institutions. Indian academics have largely been `derived’ intellectuals, borrowing ideas from the West and recycling them in India. This trend would be reinforced to the detriment of those who were generating socially relevant knowledge because their work would be largely characterized as not of international standard and discounted in recruitment and promotions.

    The disadvantage of a Late Start

    It could be argued that one should not reinvent the wheel; therefore, there is no harm in borrowing ideas from abroad. In growth literature it is called `advantage of a late start’ – technology already developed becomes available to the late starters. A pre-requisite for this strategy to succeed, in a fast changing world, is a strong research environment in the borrowing country. Without that the borrowing country could become permanently dependent, leading to a `disadvantage of a late start’. This is true for most developing countries, including India.

    With NEP 2020, a new experiment has started without addressing the root cause of the failure of earlier policies. Our institutions of higher learning operate in a feudal mode where the autonomy and originality of academics are undermined.

    In India with every pay commission, steps to strengthen teaching and research in institutions of higher education were put into place but they have not delivered in the absence of basic reforms. With NEP 2020, a new experiment has started without addressing the root cause of the failure of earlier policies. Our institutions of higher learning operate in a feudal mode where the autonomy and originality of academics are undermined. Independence in thought is seen as a malaise to be eliminated little realizing that that is the key to new knowledge generation. No wonder, those Indians who deliver when in foreign institutions fail to do so working in India.

     

     

    In brief, borrowing from abroad without changing the systems in the country will not lead to atmanirbharta. The deficiencies in our education system need to be rectified before the strategy to borrow can succeed. Are we not putting the cart before the horse when the leadership talks of atmanirbharta while doing everything to curtail originality in thought and seeking compliance with their diktats?

    The slogan of Vishwaguru and atmanirbharta have not yet instilled pride in the nation, how will building a big temple do so? Will the poor and unemployed become proud citizens forgetting their misery? During the colonial period, perhaps religiosity was greater but pride was missing.

    This article was published earlier in hwnews.in
    Views expressed are author’s own.

    Feature Image Credit: newslaundry.com

    Students in Foreign University Image: business-standard.com

     

  • Lest We Forget: The Forgotten Army

    Lest We Forget: The Forgotten Army

    Military history records the fighting at Nyaung U, Irrawaddy as in the words of Slim himself, “the longest opposed river crossing of World War 2”. Dhillon and his men, despite being hugely outnumbered, with no air cover or artillery, held their ground from February 4th to February 11th, 1945.

     

    Mt. Popa (Photo on left) is in the heart of Myanmar (old Burma). It is like a largish pimple on an otherwise smooth cheek. It is the only hill, steep from all sides in an otherwise flat terrain. It is now an extinct volcano.

    My wife and I arrive at Mt. Popa from Yangon (Rangoon) after an interesting plane ride on a rickety old aircraft to Nyaung U, the airport of the ancient capital city of Bagan (two Photos as below) the city of the four thousand Pagodas).  We then take a taxi (non A/C) ride over a terribly bumpy road partially running alongside a massive pipeline being laid by the Chinese to transport oil from the Myanmar coast to South China.

    Bagan

    We are not at Mt. Popa as the regular tourist or as pilgrims to the holy sites around. We do however go and seek blessings from the deity (Photo as below) at the base of the mountain. The deity is much like some in India – it seeks offerings only in the form of liquor.

    Deity at Mt Popa

    The blessings we seek, hopefully will enable us to find an elusive little place called LEGYI. It is in the region nearby but sadly is not marked on a map. The tourist office in Yangon do not know about it. I, fortunately, had some idea about its whereabouts gleaned from the records of my late Uncle (Col. Prem Sahgal) and late Aunt (Capt. Lakshmi Sahgal) of the INA –  Indian National Army (Azad Hind Fauj). Their home in Kanpur was called ‘Legyi House’.

    We drive on from Mt. Popa on a small road in the general direction of the Irrawaddy River and Mandalay. Our guide makes the driver stop every few kilometres to ask about Legyi but in vain. Finally at the crossroads of a small village the guide talks to a little old lady. Amazingly the old lady (Photo on the left) knows where the place is. It is right next to her ancestral home. It is the place, as the old lady said, ‘where this great battle took place many years ago’. She asks where we are from. On being told that we are from India she castigates us. The Japanese come regularly bearing the favourite foods and music of their soldier ancestors but no Indians. Apparently we are the first Indians there after the ‘big battle’ in February 1945!

    Legyi (Photos as below) is the small knoll of a battleground where one of the battalions of  INA’s  2nd Infantry Regiment (under the command of Col. Prem Sahgal) troops valiantly held their ground for days against repeated attacks by formations of the overwhelming might of (then) General Slim’s massive 14th Army. With no Air Force cover or artillery, and with an almost non – existent supply line, they should have been easily wiped out in a matter of hours. Yet they held ground for over a week. They fought valiantly and inflicted huge casualties, largely with the use of guerrilla tactics making Legyi arguably the INA’s most successful battle action.

    Author at Legyi

    Just before the ferocious fighting took place at Legyi, some 50 kilometers north east, just beyond modern day Nyaung U airport, another notable encounter took place.  Two battalions of the INA were tasked to delay and frustrate the imminent attempt by Gen. Messervy’s 7th Indian Division, part of Slim’s 14th Army, to make the crossing of the Irrawaddy River. With 1200 men these battalions, under the Command of Col. Gurbaksh Singh Dhillon, had the daunting task of stalling to the absolute limit the crossing of the river by some 30,000 troops amassed on the river’s western bank. Military history records the fighting at Nyaung U, Irrawaddy as in the words of Slim himself, “the longest opposed river crossing of World War 2”. Dhillon and his men, despite being hugely outnumbered, with no air cover or artillery, held their ground from February 4th to February 11th, 1945.

    Lest it be forgotten the INA, starting from Farrer Park Race Course in Singapore went all the way up and crossed the Indian border fighting to plant the National Flag at Imphal, much as the British tried to deride this valiant army.

    When we, on our visit, reached the eastern bank of the Irrawaddy at Nyaung U (Photo on left) from Legyi we could visualise what a herculean task Dhillon and his men had performed. The river there is enormous in width. It is rapid flowing, almost torrential. The massive Brahmaputra at Guwahati is not even half that. How did the small force manage to fight back all the frontal and outflanking assaults?

    The INA actions at Legyi and Nyaung U are perhaps the best examples of what a truly secular force comprising Hindu, Muslim, Sikhs, Christians, the lot under the command of Indian officers can achieve when they fight for the cause of the country – in this case, Independence. Lest it be forgotten the INA, starting from Farrer Park Race Course in Singapore went all the way up and crossed the Indian border fighting to plant the National Flag at Imphal, much as the British tried to deride this valiant army.

    Let us recall, it was on February 17, 1942, that the Indian officers and men of Lt General Arthur Percival’s army in the then Malaya marched into Farrer Park Stadium under the command of the senior most Indian officer, Col Zaman Kiani. There were no British officers and men with them. Gen Percival and his army had ceded Singapore to the conquering Japanese two days earlier. The British officers decided that they would surrender separately at Changi. The Indians troops were ordered to surrender by themselves at Farrer Park, pretty much abandoned to their own fate by their British colleagues. After their surrender, they were separately incarcerated at Neesoon Camp in Seletar. Peter Ward Fay writes in The Forgotten Army: India’s Armed Struggle for Independence: “Much later, in the chorus of anger and embarrassment that rose among Englishmen on the subject of the INA, no one was heard to suggest that Percival should have refused to let himself and his colleagues be separated from their brothers in arms, the Indian officers.” This was to be a crucial factor in what ensued.

    For their valiant stand against Slim’s 14th Army, Sahgal and Dhillon along with their superior officer, Gen. Shah Nawaz Khan were placed under arrest. They were to be made examples of for their audacity! After the termination of hostilities at the end of the war the three were brought to Delhi and incarcerated in a remote part of the Red Fort awaiting a Court Martial to be held within the premises of the Fort.

    This, for the usually astute British, was quite a blunder. First to select for trial a Hindu, a Sikh and a Muslim (exemplifying INA’s secular make up and credentials) and then to hold the trial in Delhi’s Red Fort, the very icon that Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, the Supreme Commander, had projected as the goal to be attained. Worse, the trial would be held in the same premises where India’s last Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar was tried, sentenced and deported to Rangoon where he died. The symbolism perhaps had somehow escaped the colonial rulers.

    Also that independent undivided India’s first Government, with Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose having taken his oath as its first Prime Minister had been formed in Singapore. News now came in that the National flag had already been hoisted at Imphal and at Port Blair in the Andamans. Free India’s first currency notes and stamps had been issued. The nation was in uproar!

    When the curtain of secrecy was finally lifted and the ‘INA Red Fort Trial’ began, the populace finally got to know about the INA, the extraordinary fight by its men as well as women. Also that independent undivided India’s first Government, with Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose having taken his oath as its first Prime Minister had been formed in Singapore. News now came in that the National flag had already been hoisted at Imphal and at Port Blair in the Andamans. Free India’s first currency notes and stamps had been issued. The nation was in uproar!

    Many of the then leading politicians with legal backgrounds volunteered to lead the legal defence team – Nehru, Katju, Patel et al. My grandfather, a sitting Judge of the Punjab High Court, applied and received leave of absence to supervise the legal defence arrangements for the ‘Lal Qila 3’. He rejected the offers by the politico lawyers. Instead he opted for the one he thought was quite simply the best legal mind of the country – Bhulabhai Desai. He would be the lead attorney.

    The then Advocate General, Sir Nowshirman Engineer for the prosecution argued that the three accused had committed treason by violating the oath they had taken on being inducted as officers into the British Indian Army. Bhulabhai Desai in defence argued for some ten hours over a period of two days. Firstly, he claimed, the so called oath of office became invalid when Gen. Percival and the British Officers decided to surrender separately at Changi in Singapore and ordered all Indians to go to the surrender ceremony at the Farrer Park Race Course.

    Equally importantly Bhulabhai Desai argued (1) that an enslaved nation had the legal right to engage in military action to free itself from a foreign coloniser (2) That the INA fought on the behalf of a properly constituted Government of free India recognised by other international governments, and (3) That the INA was a properly constituted disciplined army, managed entirely be competent Indian Officers with this army having its own uniforms, ranks, ethos, and ‘regalia’.

    To put it succinctly what Bhulabhai Desai told the Court Martial was that it was as a sovereign nation with a recognised Government in place, that India had declared war on Britain and sent its Army i.e. the INA, to fight.

    To put it succinctly what Bhulabhai Desai told the Court Martial was that it was as a sovereign nation with a recognised Government in place, that India had declared war on Britain and sent its Army i.e. the INA, to fight. Hence under International Law the Indian National Army had the status of a legitimate ‘belligerent’. Accordingly the defendants could in no case be tried for treason or other offences under a Penal Code based on British ‘Municipal Law’, as Desai put it.

    To quote from Bhulabhai’s arguments, he stated “….The position now is that international law has reached this stage that if liberty and democracy are to have any meaning all over the world, and not merely just for a part of it, and this is not politics, it is law – any war made for the purpose of liberating oneself from foreign yoke is completely justified by modern international law. And it will be a travesty of justice if we were to be told as a result of any decision arrived at here or otherwise, that the Indian may go as a soldier to fight for freedom of England against Germany, for England against Italy, for England against Japan, and yet a stage may not be reached when a free Indian State may not wish to free itself from any country including England itself.”[1]

    Whether these lucid arguments had any real effect on the senior British Officers sitting on the Court Martial Bench and influenced their decision, we do not quite know. The final sentence against the three defendants whilst finding them guilty of treason did not go as far as delivering death sentences. The three brave officers were dismissed from service and forfeited any pay and allowances due.

    At the news of the release of Shah Nawaz Khan, Prem Saghal and Gurbaksh Singh Dhillon from their detention cells in the Red Fort there were massive and jubilant countrywide celebrations. The colonial administration, we now know, took due notice – not only of the exploits of the INA, the nationwide consternation during the Red Fort trial and jubilations at its end, but also of the Naval Mutiny at (then) Bombay and the Air Force Mutiny at Karachi around the same time.

    “…..Gandhi is not a problem. We can deal with him and handle him. The Congress is also not a problem. We can easily deal with them. But now that India and Indians know about the INA as also about the mutinies in the Royal Indian Navy and the Royal Indian Air Force, the Indians know that we have lost the love of the Indian Armed Forces. It is time to leave India!” …. note to the Viceroy, Field Marshal Wavell from the then Commander-in-Chief in India, Field Marshal Sir Claude Achinleck 

    Deep down in the 4th basement level in a temperature and humidity controlled hall of the British Library near Euston Station, London are stored the ‘India Office Records’. These records are pretty nearly everything that the British colonial rulers had with them in India and transported them back ‘in toto’ before Aug. 15th, 1947. Amongst these records is a document penned by the Commander in Chief in India – Field Marshall Sir Claude Auchinleck. It is a Memo to the then Viceroy – Field Marshall Wavell. The purport of this extraordinary memorandum is that “…..Gandhi is not a problem. We can deal with him and handle him. The Congress is also not a problem. We can easily deal with them. But now that India and Indians know about the INA as also about the mutinies in the Royal Indian Navy and the Royal Indian Air Force, the Indians know that we have lost the love of the Indian Armed Forces. It is time to leave India!” As Alex von Tunzelmann writes in his excellent book[2] “… neither Gandhi nor Congress party agitations forced British hands. It was…. the possibility of full scale military revolt due to the influence of Subhas Bose (and the INA) which led to the British exit from India.

    And yet generations of young Indian students in schools and colleges are still being taught that it was Gandhi and the Congress that got India’s independence!! They are still being taught that Nehru was India’s first Prime Minister. Yes he was but that of ‘DIVIDED INDIA’. The record shows that it was Subhash Chandra Bose – Netaji, who was the first Prime Minister – OF AN UNDIVIDED INDIA.

    JAI HIND!

     

     References

    [1] “Two Historic Trials in Red Fort” – Moti Ram; Roxy Print Press, 1946.

    [2] “Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire”; Alex von Tunzelmann;

     

    All colour photos by the author. 

  • The South: Where the Chariots stopped in the Past

    The South: Where the Chariots stopped in the Past

    There is no apparent reason why Dr. John Jackson (1835-1911), a 19th-century Yorkshire-born British Psychologist should be of any interest to us in the 21st India. Yet, he is important in order to understand what is happening to the BJP’s misplaced ambitions in India south of the Vindhyas.

    First about Dr. Jackson. He was the first scientist to come up with the answer as to why mariners experience directional disorientation when they sail on vast seas. This navigational impairment, described by Jackson as ‘topological agnosia’ (literally, loss of knowledge about directions) was caused in his analysis by a distortion in an individual’s memory. An individual afflicted by this agnosia is found unable to remember to a destination known to him to be able to recall important landmarks seen a long time ago. Among the patients that Jackson studied were some women who knew where the London Bridge was, but they did not know how to go there from their homes. In their memory, the ‘little maps’ were forgotten, though the larger maps were inscribed in their brain. European colonial expansion was distinctly marked by this disorientation. When it was spreading south of Europe, the colonial powers thought of the south as ‘east’ and built a strong binary between the west and the east.

    Topological Agnosia is the term that can most accurately describe the BJP’s ‘Mission South.’ In order to understand why the party that feels so much at home in the Hindi heartland in the north should feel so unsure of its direction in the south, we need to look at the context within which its foundations were laid. Obviously, one has to refer to the shaping of the core ideas of the Hindutva ideology. It is not necessary to state that at its heart is the dubious and non-scientific theory of ‘Aryans as a Master Race’. This idea was in circulation among some of the 19th century European linguists. They imagined that what was initially proposed as the name of a language (‘Indo-Aryan’) was in fact the name of a community (or a race). Some of them went to the length of proving that the Aryans resided in remote ancient times in North Europe. Karl Plenka actually gave a homeland for this imagined master race, unquestioningly assuming that the master race was the master race of the pure Aryans.

    Besides, the traditions of spirituality and worship developed in the south for the last three millennia have their own distinct and syncretic trajectories which do not easily gel with the RSS-VHP idea of Hinduism. Besides, as Basavanna, Akkamma, Periyar, Phule, Shahu, and Ambedkar so ably demonstrate, a larger majority of the people south of the Vindhyas have reason to find the exclusionary and myopic social and cultural interpretations of history entirely repugnant.

    Adolf Hitler

    In the third decade of the 20th century, Adolf Hitler made these theories the foundation of his ‘National Socialism’ and the associated drive for ‘racial purification.’ The founders of the RSS in India were his contemporaries and shared his enthusiasm for the theory of Aryan supremacy. Though completely unscientific in terms of the history of the people of India, the RSS, and the BJP like to believe that someday in the future they will be able to establish the supremacy of the (imaginary) Aryans over the diverse peoples in the Indian subcontinent, the south included. To aid this wishful aspiration, the RSS has brought in a misconstrued idea of what constitutes being Hindu. However, the Indian sub-continent South of the Vindhyas has a long history of resistance to the domination from the north. Besides, the traditions of spirituality and worship developed in the south for the last three millennia have their own distinct and syncretic trajectories which do not easily gel with the RSS-VHP idea of Hinduism. Besides, as Basavanna, Akkamma, Periyar, Phule, Shahu, and Ambedkar so ably demonstrate, a larger majority of the people south of the Vindhyas have reason to find the exclusionary and myopic social and cultural interpretations of history entirely repugnant. It is not a surprise, therefore, that despite desperate efforts by the VHP and RSS throughout the twentieth century, their general support base in the southern states had remained nominal.

    This has changed since 2014. The current regime has displayed an unmatched zeal in intimidating political leaders by using the ED, the CBI, and troll gangs. It has displayed a skill in the use of post-truth and propaganda for generating popular opinion as never before. The erosion of media and the collapse of institutions that are expected to uphold constitutional values and constitutional arrangements to safeguard democracy has apparently increased the chance of success for BJP’s south mission. Besides, the use of funds for party-swapping is a trick that the BJP has mastered well. All these factors—the use of muscle, official machinery, money, intimidation, and propaganda—have made the south more vulnerable to the divisive, exclusionary, and myopic nationalism of the BJP.

    Yet, it would be naïve to believe that countering the Hindutva and Pseudo-Nationalism onslaught would be possible by mouthing our worn-out phrases and analysis related to class-based or caste-based understanding of India in the third decade of the 21st century.

    Countering the flawed ideas of nationalism and the exclusionary notion of dharma is an urgent need for the people, language-communities and the political parties south of the Vindhyas. Probably, it is them alone who are now left with the capacity to do so, since the ‘Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan’ tune has overpowered the people and the northern ‘heartland-states’. Yet, it would be naïve to believe that countering the Hindutva and Pseudo-Nationalism onslaught would be possible by mouthing our worn-out phrases and analysis related to class-based or caste-based understanding of India in the third decade of the 21st century. Also, being fiercely against any geographical, linguistic or social factionalism, we have to reinvent our politics and political terminology. Remaining entirely within the framework of the Constitution, one very powerful message that the Southern States and people can give to the rest of India is that of federalism.

    The Constitution describes the country as a union of states’ and its provisions are oriented towards keeping this union intact and integrated by respecting the difference and diversity.

    The Constitution describes the country as a union of states’ and its provisions are oriented towards keeping this union intact and integrated by respecting the difference and diversity. Hence, our insistence on the principle of federalism would also mean our insistence on constitutional values. It would reiterate the need for recognizing and respecting diversities and, therefore, rejecting the Hindutva agenda of the RSS-BJP. This understanding, if shared by the communities, movements, language groups, political parties, theological sects, and cultural-industries in the states south of the Vindhyas, can—together—stop the BJP where it should be stopped and reverse the fortunes of fascism in India. We all owe it to India, our sacred nation. We also owe it to the great tradition of civilization that the south has built over the past millennia.

    The opinions expressed are personal views of the author.

    This article was published earlier in gaurilankeshnews.com

  • Understanding the Catalonian Crisis through the Relative Deprivation theory

    Understanding the Catalonian Crisis through the Relative Deprivation theory

    On 1st October 2017, people in Catalonia, a semi-autonomous region in Spain, held a referendum in which 90 percent of those who participated sought to break away from the Spanish state and create the independent Republic of Catalonia. This referendum which endorsed independence was declared illegal by the Spanish government. This declaration was based on a ruling by the Constitutional Court, and the results of the referendum were also not taken seriously by the international community. Since then, Catalonia has remained politically deadlocked. While the Spanish government and the leaders of the separatist movement in Catalonia have participated in discussions and formal talks have been opened in 2020, there has been no resolution to this festering political crisis.

    A deep sense of relative deprivation has entered the minds of the Catalan people wherein they feel that the Spanish identity has been given more prominence in comparison to their Catalan identity.

    This desire for independence as expressed by the people of Catalonia did not emerge suddenly but had been simmering for an extended period. The social mobilisation occurred because of the frustration that they have as a result of a lack of representation of their culture and language within the Spanish state. The hostility shown to demands of more autonomy and representation has also led to more anger. A deep sense of relative deprivation has entered the minds of the Catalan people wherein they feel that the Spanish identity has been given more prominence in comparison to their Catalan identity.

    While there is a long history of oppression and centralisation, the recent turmoil, however, started in 2010 when the Spanish Constitutional Court quashed a law passed by the regional parliament of Catalonia which updated the autonomous government’s statute. This statute dating to 1979 mapped the relations between Catalonia and the rest of Spain. The court rejected articles in the statute that put the Catalan language above the Spanish language and any articles that referred to Catalonia as a nation rather than as a region.

    This article seeks to understand the reason behind the Catalonian crisis using the relative deprivation model put forth by Ted Gurr. This model has been used to clarify how cultural and linguistic suppression of the Catalan people has led to collective turmoil.

    Relative Deprivation Model of Gurr

    Gurr’s relative deprivation model states that when a sense of deprivation emerges in a group in relation to another group, then it can lead to collective violence or dissatisfaction. Gurr uses a psychological approach to explain why anger or frustration caused by a sense of deprivation is a motivating instrument that can make people more inclined towards aggression.

    The term relative deprivation is used by Gurr who defines it as “actor’s perception of discrepancy between their value expectations (the goods and conditions of the life to which they believe they are justifiably entitled) and their value capabilities (the amounts of those goods and conditions that they think they can get and keep)”. Thus, if there is a discrepancy between what people in a group believe they should get and what they do get then, it leads to frustration, disturbance, and a sense of deprivation. The greater the gap between the expectations of the people and reality, the higher the magnitude for aggression and civil strife. One important thing to note here is that the sense of deprivation is always in relation or comparison to another group.

    Gurr further states that the magnitude of the civil strife or dissatisfaction is dependent on the intensity of the sense of deprivation among the people of the group. As per the relative deprivation theory, there are certain factors or societal variables that have an impact on the relationship between deprivation and the ensuing civil strife. These societal variables include:  (a) coercive potential (of the government to put off the conflict), (b) institutionalisation (the extent to which societal structures may offer non-violent means for expressing dissatisfaction to the social group with the perceived deprivation), (c) social facilitation (that further facilitate strife) and lastly, (d) legitimacy of the political regime in which all this occurs.

    Applying the Relative Deprivation Model to the Catalonian situation

     By applying this theory to the Catalonian crisis, it is easy to see how the deprivation of the Catalan culture, language, and history frustrated the Catalan people and led to the unprecedented social mobilisation for independence from the Spanish state. The people of Catalonia are unsatisfied and angry with the way their culture and particularly, their language, is being slowly eroded as compared to the relevance and status accorded to the Spanish language.

    The Catalan people consider their language to be the principal element of their identity and believe that it is the ‘rallying cry of their solidarity’. The sidelining of their language is seen as an affront to their identity.

    Language is seen as a crucial distinguishing feature by the Catalan people and the speakers of Castilian Spanish. Many people living in Catalonia also want the Catalan language to be officially recognised by the European Union and put on par with the Spanish language even outside the country settings, which has not happened. The reversal of the statute that allowed for the exercise of Catalan language over the Spanish language in the region has brought the identity discord in the open. The Catalan people consider their language to be the principal element of their identity and believe that it is the ‘rallying cry of their solidarity’. The sidelining of their language is seen as an affront to their identity.

    The economic state of affairs further accentuates their anger over the under-representation of their language in museums, government offices, libraries, and all official channels of the central government in Madrid. Catalonia is one highly prosperous part of Spain but many in Catalonia feel that they are bearing the brunt of the high taxes and austerity measures for the rest of the country’s needs with whom they have little in common.

    Conclusion:

    Ted Gurr’s relative deprivation theory states that when a group of people feel that they are deprived of something, whether economically, socially or politically, in comparison to another group of people, they will feel frustrated and that frustration can lead to violence. The Catalonian crisis, when understood using this model, provides an incredibly accurate picture of how the suppression of one’s language and history can result in political strife.

    The Catalonian situation is quite similar to that of Scotland in the United Kingdom. People in Scotland are also quite proud of their distinct language (Gaelic), traditions and also have a strong sense of independent spirit which they believe is curtailed by the Westminster government. Scotland’s Prime Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, recently indicated that she would pursue another referendum for independence in the coming year as support for an independent government has increased steadfastly in 2020 with the pandemic exposing the cracks in the current system.

    For both Catalonia and Scotland, the model followed in the erstwhile USSR in terms of accommodation of identities can provide a way forward or represent a comparatively better model of governance. Under Lenin’s leadership, striking flexibility with respect to the various countries encompassed within the Soviet Union in terms of expression of their individual nationalities was displayed. Lenin used a degree of accommodation towards peripheral nationalist tendencies displayed by the non-Russian states as he believed it to be a pragmatic solution. While political autonomy remained elusive to the non-Russian states, the accommodation of their national identities meant that they were somewhat satisfied. The Soviet state itself encouraged the use of local languages in schools and universities and even in the local administrative offices.

     

    References:

    “A Year Later: An Update on the Catalonian Independence Movement.” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 27 Nov. 2018, jtl.columbia.edu/a-year-later-an-update-on-the-catalonian-independence-movement/.

    “Catalonia: From Secessionism to Secession?” E-International Relations, www.e-ir.info/2016/01/15/catalonia-from-secessionism-to-secession/.

    “Catalonia: Past and Future.” Jacobin, www.jacobinmag.com/2017/10/catalonia-independence-franco-spain-nationalism.

    Gurr, Ted. “A causal model of civil strife: A comparative analysis using new indices.” American political science review 62.4 (1968): 1104-1124.

    Gurr, Ted Robert. “Why Men Rebel Redux: How Valid Are Its Arguments 40 Years On?” E-international Relations 17 (2011).

    Huddleston, R. Joseph. “The Roots of the Catalan Independence Crisis.” Foreign Affairs, Foreign Affairs Magazine, 30 Oct. 2017, www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/spain/2017-10-30/roots-catalan-independence-crisis.

    Marinzel, Anastazia. “Catalonia: The quest for independence from Spain.” (2014).

    “Scotland: Nicola Sturgeon Aims for 2021 Independence Vote.” The Indian Express, 1 Dec. 2020, indianexpress.com/article/world/scotland-nicola-sturgeon-aims-for-2021-independence-vote-7075166/

     

    Image Credit: “Catalonia is not Spain” by SBA73 is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

  • Nationalism Today: A Threat to Democracy and Multilateralism?

    Nationalism Today: A Threat to Democracy and Multilateralism?

    The idea of ‘nationalism’ and a sense of cohesive national identity has existed perhaps longer than the system of modern nation-states came to be. Except for a few, every empire, kingdom, and the territorial state tried to legitimise and conceptualise its authority in the minds of its citizens through ideology. A phenomenon that recurs throughout history, nationalism has only recently taken on the connotations it holds today: a malignant force that separates and divides rather than unites and deteriorates rather than improves.

    A phenomenon that recurs throughout history, nationalism has only recently taken on the connotations it holds today: a malignant force that separates and divides rather than unites and deteriorates rather than improves.

    In the contemporary context, this phenomenon presents across the world and appears to be accelerated by the current global pandemic. If one begins their survey at the Westernmost end, it is easy to witness this wave all over: in the United States, ahead of the elections, with Trump’s white supremacist, protectionist agenda underlined by anti-immigration measures; further in Europe, the rise of nationalist parties in Italy and Spain; Russia’s stifling of dissent and opposition under the mandate of national security, Viktor Orban’s rule by decree-law in Hungary to take over complete control in the Covid-19 backdrop- and further east, India’s and China’s majoritarian movements reflecting minority suppression and territorial aggression respectively.

    Considering these developments, the looming health crisis appears to be the catalyst for the rise of this aggressive, exclusionary brand of nationalism, or as observers have called it, hyper-nationalism. But looking beyond the surface one can discern the vast backdrop of a competitive international system that allowed these movements to become the popular political tool of the time.

    The past decades were characterised by some major changes in the international order; most importantly, the transition from a unipolar world under American hegemony to an emerging multipolar polar one with the rise of Asian powers and a Russia hoping to regain its superpower status. Economic ebbs and falls, the climate crisis, and a shift from multilateralism and globalism was the backdrop against which China grew as a rule-maker in the international system. China’s rapid rise as a global power gives the spectre of a possible bipolar world.

    Akin to the Cold War, wherein ideological systems competed, this decade in the post-COVID-19 world is also marked by alliances, power clusters, challenges to the globalised economy, and the visible fragility of the liberal democracy. While nations like the US prompt the liberal world to identify China as the face of the abstract systemic threat to the framework of democracy, liberalism and multilateral cooperation, the real danger may lie elsewhere. Besides coronavirus and the human tragedy, it evoked, the endemic threat to the norms and values of the democratic order is most likely internal and to be found in the political weaponry of modern democracy.

    What does nationalism mean as a value? To a nation-state, creating a sense of allegiance to the nation-state is extremely important and vital to its survival. Nationalism may be a force of resistance against oppressive authorities, or toward self-determination. The Irish and Indian national movements against colonisation, for instance, were nationalistic struggles that established self-governance in these countries and were spearheaded by the people themselves. However, nationalism may also manifest as state-led, systemic, and top-down approach under the authority of a populist leader who commands the support of many. An example is Mussolini’s fascist movement in Italy, prompted by the poverty and economic downfall of the interwar period.

    Triggered (although not caused) by extreme crises like the pandemic, this kind of nationalism uses a nationwide problem to appropriate control and stir political unrest.

    What we see in the world today is ostensibly the latter: aggressive, top-down nationalism where individuals and groups have little organic agency or innovation. Triggered (although not caused) by extreme crises like the pandemic, this kind of nationalism uses a nationwide problem to appropriate control and stir political unrest. These forms of control may involve excessive use of the police apparatus to restrict movement, a suspension of electoral or democratic processes and accountability mechanisms, or the use of the pandemic to enforce identity politics against minorities. In India, the police crackdown on the Shaheen Bagh riots in January 2020, a series of protests against the discriminatory Citizenship Amendment Act, is an example along with the United States’ successive episodes of racially motivated police brutality against African Americans. In Hungary, Orban has been pushing towards a regionalist, Christian, Central European community at the expense of minorities and immigrants (while heavily militarising Budapest in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic).

    This causality, somewhere in the 21st century, seems to have weathered down and given way to   monolithic ideas of territoriality, authority, centralisation, and capitalism, propelled especially by the role of contemporary social media.

    Nationalism has historically been espoused with democratic revolution and civil rights movements. In the French Revolution, the Irish Independence movements, and the colonial liberation movements of many other colonies, nationalist movements allowed a people to unite for a secular, democratic cause: self-determination. Even as of the late 20th century, nationalism served to demolish imperialism, colonialism, and dictatorships giving rise to civil rights, suffrage, labour rights, and even the welfare states. This causality, somewhere in the 21st century, seems to have weathered down and given way to   monolithic ideas of territoriality, authority, centralisation, and capitalism, propelled especially by the role of contemporary social media. The question that we must ask is this: Is the current flavour of nationalism serving any advantage to strengthening the democratic apparatus? Does it help make our leaders accountable, our parties representative, and our economies more resilient to face unexpected crises?

     
    Image credit: vocal.media

  • PDC 6: Concept and relevance of Nationalism in the 21st century

    PDC 6: Concept and relevance of Nationalism in the 21st century

    PDC Past Event :  25th Jan 2020

    The concept of nationalism and its influence in shaping the modern world system is undeniable. According to Anderson, humans consider themselves as part of imagined communities based on some common features and derive collective responsibility to that idea. This feeling over time results in identifying a language, shared heritage, and so on to develop uniqueness and distinctness of their community from others. Across history, there are various instances of multiple nations existing under a common kingdom like the Roman Empire, Austria-Hungary, etc. However, post the thirty year war and the Treaty of Westphalia, modern nation states evolved and nationalism became a primary force in shaping these entities. This found its final expression in John Locke’s philosophy that rejected the divine rights of the king and stressed that all persons are endowed with natural rights, and rulers failing to protect them should be removed, with force if necessary. These rising concepts drove the masses towards liberty, equality and fraternity resulting in the French revolution and the American war of independence. The race between powerful states and the spread of colonialism ensured that a national identity could be forged only with a population within a defined territory, ruled by a legitimate government. This Western notion of modern nation states was applied to all regions of the world, altering the natural course of evolution of the nationalism process in these regions. From Africa to Asia, territorial claims and the forging multiple nations to form nation states resulted in various challenges that still remain. For instance, Iraq was formed based on its oil reserves and not in its civilizational bonds. It brought forged the Shia, Sunni and Kurd communities with differing histories and no common bond into a single nation state, resulting in a fragile state with implications even felt today.

    Interestingly, globalisation and its standardising imperatives have stimulated nationalism rather than dissolving its validity. It is argued that self- determination in the 21st century, especially when the global culture is increasingly unified, intensifies due to revival of nationalism. As communication and movement is eased, often the unique identity is weakened. These disruptors to national identities are seen as threats, which is used by politicians and world leaders to strengthen the existing uniqueness of their states. However, these nationalistic drives disregard the diversity that exists in each nation state, creating domestic challenges, particularly for minorities. Electoral politics further divides the people by creating a nation of us vs them, often painting others as potential threats. This has manifested into modern challenges of immigration, terrorism and so on. The rise of hypernationalism in modern day politics can be traced along these lines. By imposing a common national identity, it affects the subnational sentiments of the people since nationalism is more local than national. Singapore, for instance, thrives by creating an equal space for the various sections of its people. While nationalism is a requirement for the functioning of any nation, hypernationalism is a threat to its very existence.