Nation-states have become the new category of political governance. This becomes clearer if one sees human civilisation in a continuum of early civil societies
Perhaps one of the decisive gifts of the 19th century to the world history was the concept of a ‘nation-state'. Ever since the civil society was born, safety and security of the people always drove them to collect in groups. It is not surprising that the strongest among them, physically, carrying with him remarkable traits of intelligence, became the ‘king’ or the ‘chief’. Chanakya was the first political and social thinker in the world to have written on this trait.
It was logical, therefore, that the unity of such groups was driven by geographical communicability and communication networks. What the 19th century did was to add to the concept of civil society, the component of ethnicity. Witness Bismarck's drive at German unification. Other examples can be found in Italy and elsewhere. It was natural for these states, many of which developed their own empires, to carry the frameworks of their political governance to their empires. France, Spain, Portugal, United Kingdom et al carved their territories across the world. Come independence, the concept of political governance and the basis of legitimised authority of the colonising power were transferred to the succeeding unities, now called ‘nations'.
Consider the map of India in the early 20th century, which spread from the tip of the Burmese peninsula to Afghanistan. Clearly, the routes of trade and land commerce were creating affinities. Partly out of imperial machinations and emerging urges of ethnic bonding, fresh entities appeared. Burma and Afghanistan were the early starters.
Be that as it may, the basic thesis of this text is that nation- states, as an instrument of governance, are a comparatively new category of political governance. This becomes clearer if one sees human civilisation in a continuum of early civil societies. This led to some genuine doubts and some spurious questioning. Consider the so-called debate on “is India a nationIJ” Eloquence abounds on this topic and attempts are made to interpret Indian unity in replication of German unification or some such European template. Inevitably, fault lines are discovered. Not surprisingly, these fault lines are used to fan sub-nationalistic urges.
Few have also asked if those scales of defining a nation are so immutable, why then, to give an example, should Germany and Austria be two entitiesIJ Indeed, many contradictions arise which cannot be logically resolved. An illustration may help. Not many know that Adolf Hitler was born in Austria and would, therefore, have to be domiciled in Germany as per present standards. Similarly, it is not so well-known that world-class music composer, ludwig van Beethoven, was a German-born and then migrated to Austria.
Administrative unities have to be created not because there is always a pristine logic but also because there is a need to be met. Early 20th century saw the category of the nation emerging, the end of the 20th century saw terrorism stalking the nations. The creation of Pakistan or emergence of nations from the framework of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics etc, are only better known examples of a category called ‘nation’. The idea of a nation was never collectively defined in a universally acceptable way.
Some more examples — Indian civilisation is often traced to the Indus valley that is now a part of Pakistan. Mortimer Wheeler, renowned British archaeologist, gifted that to Pakistan's history of 5,000 years. Technically, he was arguing a neat concept of a nation which he refused to attribute to Radcliffe's line on a map.
The narration is illustrative of confusion of categories. A developed country like Canada has its own separatist movement in Québec in Canada. The South American landmass has examples where political leader Simón Bolívar is credited as the father of four distinct nations. Coming back to the concerns of Bharat, perhaps, the time has come to recognise that solutions based on alien categories make the confusion only more confounded.
It is fashionable to swear by the Indian Constitution and overlook the fact that the Constitution says that the Indian people have resolved to make India a socialist, democratic republic. It is long time since anybody significant of political stature talked of socialism. More can be said on how exigencies and convenience drive administrative thought and action. However, need it be saidIJ
(The writer is a well-known management consultant)