3

Citizenship and National Identity

Suparna Priyadarshini

Legendary painter M.F. Husain, who was granted Qatari citizenship, has
surrendered his Indian passport to the country's mission in Doha, a media
report said today. After handing over his passport Husain said ‘India is
my motherland and I simply cannot leave that country. What I have
surrendered is just a piece of paper,’ he further added, ‘Art is universal
and something that transcends all artificial boundaries. I am just a living
being in the universe created by God. I will have a small patch of land on
the earth when I die. Where I am going to be buried on this earth is not a
problem that affects me.’ He also clarified that, ‘I have not abandoned
India. Though I consider myself a world citizen, I am accepting Qatari
citizenship because of some technical reasons and artistic conveniences.’

Outlookindia.com, 8 March 2010, Dubai

Introduction

What exactly does this all mean? Does this mean that the already
ambiguous terminology, ‘citizenship’, is becoming more complicated and
losing its classical meaning? Questions related to the academic import of
citizenship and its relationship (if any) with other closely linked terms like
national identity and nationality have been plaguing the minds of many. In
fact, concepts like Nation, Nationality and National Identity need to be
studied and critically analysed with reference to the changing scenario. This
is the thrust area that I would like to deal with in the next few pages.
However, any clarification with regard to understanding the concepts in a
modernized world should be done in the context of citizenship.
Accordingly, before going into any details, let us take a look at the questions
that form the body of this chapter.
  What is the significance of citizenship in the life of an individual?
 Is citizenship merely an official status?
 Does it (citizenship) have any bearing on the mental set-up of an inhabitant?
 What are the differences/similarities between the concept(s) of nation and
state?
 What are the various approaches to and forms of nationalism?
 What is national identity? What is its importance in the life of an individual?
 In India, do we see a possibility of conflating citizenship and national identity?

Citizenship as such is a universal phenomenon, although it is confined

within national boundaries, as explained in Chapter 2. With the world
shrinking and the extension of interaction among nations along with the
movement of people across national boundaries, a whole new meaning of
the term citizenship is now unfolding. Given this new perspective emerging
out of the world scenario, one is tempted to examine the import and
implications of the term. Against this backdrop, it would be interesting to
glance through the following example illustrating the confusion that people
might have vis-à-vis citizenship.

BOX 3.1

Biswajit and Anita, a middle-aged Indian couple from the eastern part of India,
have been serving at Berkeley in California since the last 25 years. One evening
their 18-year-old daughter Kakoli suddenly stopped writing while filling up a form
for employment and posed a question that startled as well as confused Biswajit, a
middle-rung executive. Kakoli's question was—‘Papa, we eat typical Indian food
like fish curry and rice for our principal meals, belong to a religion other than that
of average Americans, observe festivals like Diwali and Dussehra, unlike theirs.
On the whole, we lead a lifestyle different from people around us: then why am I
expected to declare my nationality as “American’” instead of “Indian’” in this
admission form?’

Kakoli's confusion over her true identity is shared by thousands of people

residing in countries away from their ‘homeland’, and instances such as these
clearly spell out the intimate connection between a person's citizenship and her
sense of belonging. Before we dwell on this question, it would be better to
understand the concepts that involve the whole question of citizenship and national
identity.

Understanding Citizenship
Citizenship in the present-day world is not only a popular, but also a
universal phenomenon. Usually every individual—apart from certain
exceptions—is a citizen of one or the other state. The idea of citizenship is
much wider and comprehensive today than it was in ancient Greece or
Rome or even Medieval Europe, as has already been discussed in Chapter 2.
Today, all persons who are members of a state and who enjoy certain civil
and political rights are its citizens. In the past, however, it was connected
with the privilege of taking active part (women and slaves, though, were
excluded from participation) in the political affairs of the city-state (the
classical era). A citizen today enjoys all permissible civil and political rights
by virtue of that membership, and owes her/his allegiance to the state
where s/he is a member. Hence, a citizen also owes certain duties to the
state. So the concept of citizenship carries with it not only the idea of civil
and political rights, but also the responsibility for duties and social services.
The new criteria proposed for granting citizenship in the UK, which
involves the establishment of some sort of record of social service rendered
to the needy, is an apt example.

Recently, political thinkers from both the right and the left have begun
viewing citizenship as a unifying force in a divided world. Cultural
pluralism in modern societies highlights the problem of citizenship. The
agreement between politicians of various persuasions has created a climate
of enthusiasm about citizenship as a political concept. It is also apparent
that theoretical disagreements about the meaning of citizenship are
reflected in the popular understandings of the idea. We may agree that
within an open and interactive society, public institutions and policies must
recognize the basic rights and liberties of an individual. Thus, citizenship
and rights are intricately interwoven. Citizenship, along with rights, then
forms the basis of one's membership within a particular community in the
present-day world. This means that in the contemporary world, citizenship
is not just a certain status defined by a set of rights and responsibilities;
rather, it acts as an identity for people in a society. In short, it is an
integrative function which promotes a shared identity among various social
groups, and simultaneously acts as an expression of an individual's
membership in a political community.

The Birth of a Nation

It is often observed that a person finds it easy and convenient to

immediately identify and mingle with another person speaking the same
language, sharing the same cultural values, observing the same festivals
and sharing the same lifestyle. This cultural assimilation instinctively
brings people closer than merely sharing a citizenship status. In a
metropolitan set-up, whether it be a college or university campus, an office
or residential apartment, or a social club, people look for their own ilk,
whom they identify by any of the above-mentioned factors. Although this
strongly motivates such people to live together, it does not necessarily
disrupt their national outlook, which they share by virtue of being citizens.
For instance, pride in being Indian is evidenced through the glee expressed
over winning a cricket match or a heritage site being included among the
Seven Wonders of the World (the Taj Mahal). It brings no less happiness to
Indians to gain recognition through their attainment of excellence in the
field of information technology, a Booker Prize, or even an Oscar! The
consciousness encompassing each such example indicates a sense of
belongingness or loyalty towards a particular community or social group,
and this ‘national consciousness’ often gets transformed into the concept of
the nation.

The term ‘nation’ is derived from the Latin word ‘Natio’, which means
‘birth’ or ‘race’. The origin lies in the word Nascor, ‘I am born’, whose ideal
form is Natus sum, ‘I have been born’. Nation as a term gained popularity
mainly during the French Revolution, where it was used to denote
‘patriotism’. So we often see nation being conflated with other words such
as state, race, ethnicity, xenophobia, patriotism and nationality. Hence,
Nation is where an inhabitant's emotional, material and moral meanings
are invested. It is a territorial entity where inhabitants not only find
themselves politically engaged, but also experience a strong ‘sense of
belonging’. Perhaps that is why it is called a ‘homeland’—whether adopted
or ancestral. It is this moral and psychological investment (by people) that
provides a rooted base to the otherwise abstract concept of nation.

The formation encompasses three different processes, namely sentimental

—that is, when people share the same ethnic origin; political—in the quest
of gaining independence and recognition in the form of a state;
and doctrinaire—when boundaries are redrawn due to historical and
structural changes. Although on the face of it all three attributes seem to
overlap, each has its own distinct historical consequences and reasoning.
However, the most widely accepted notion remains that a nation is
associated with a shared sense of identity, which in this modern era is
usually transformed into a political entity called the state. Thus, it would
not be incorrect to say that the state strengthens the basis of a nation and
marks the emergence of nationality or a nation-state.

The twin concepts of ‘state’ and ‘nation’ are often diffused. Undoubtedly
the co-terminality between them has become part of everyday life. On a
regular basis, various admissions forms, passport forms, or even
applications for jobs demand that one disclose his or her nationality. These
forms are interested in knowing about a person's citizenship status. Being a
political organization, the state may grant citizenship, but nationality might
be different. We often come across statements like ‘one Indian national
arrested in Australia’, or ‘five nations meet against growing terrorism’. In
the former, ‘citizen’ should have been used instead of ‘national’ while in the
latter, the reference is to ‘state’ and not ‘nation’, Walker Connor,
in Ethnonationalism: The quest for understanding (1994), attempts to
distinguish between these concepts. He says, ‘Whereas states are legal and
territorial entities and generally multi-national, nations are self
differentiating ethnic group at whose core is an intensely subjective
psychological identification, which exists beyond reason.’ Another popular
interpretation is by Max Weber, a nineteenth-century German sociologist,
who defines nation in terms of a ‘prestige community’ and argues that the
nation derives both from the material interest of the state and a sense of
‘irreplaceable cultural values’ propounded by intellectuals. He strongly
opposes the objective basis of a nation, that is, vernacular language, blood
and common descent, while agreeing with the subjective basis of a nation,
that is, the sentiment quotient. Thus, he believes that the nation, being a
community of sentiment, would lead to the creation of a state on its own.

A classic example would be that of Jews and the formation of Israel. Jews
were scattered across the globe, but belonged to the same community. The
strong feeling towards living together led to the creation of the state of
Israel. This is evident from the words,

The Palestinian people [do] not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state
is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for
our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between
Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and
tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian
people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the
existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.
The feeling of being an alien in their own land is deep-rooted amongst the
people, and finds vent in the declaration of Ahad Ha’Am, the Zionist,
during the 1920s, the period of turmoil, ‘Better to die in the Exile than to
die here and be buried in the land of fathers, if that land is considered the
“homeland” of the [Palestinian] Arabs and we are strangers in it.’ His words
created a nationalistic fervour all across the land, and remained
unforgettable throughout the annals of Palestinian history.

Conversely, whether nation is a political or cultural entity remains

debatable. Anthony D. Smith, in The Ethnic Origins of Nations (1986),
distinguishes between the relationship shared by nationalism and
modernization. He believes ‘ethnies’ or pre-modern ethnic communities
that are bound by a common culture and language to be the parental node
of modern nations. Thus, according to him, these culturally rooted ‘ethnies’
that are embedded in heritage evolved into modern nations when they
came in contact with the doctrine of sovereignty. This juxtaposition
occurred in Europe in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, and
in Asia and Africa in the twentieth century. On the other hand, modern
thinkers such as Eric Hobsbawm in Nations and Nationalism Since
1780 (1990) have emphasized the extent to which nations are ‘invented
traditions’, rather than accepting the traditional thinker's belief that
modern nations have grown and become urbanized out of time-honoured
ethnic communities. All said and done, the notion that a nation is a
conglomeration of various cultural streams is, however, a more popular
belief, and has been endorsed by most thinkers. Nevertheless, the political
connotation attached to the word ‘nation’ cannot be dismissed completely,
although it has been very poorly represented in literature. A German
historian, Fredrich Meinecke, even attempted to present a difference
between a political nation and a cultural nation in his
book Cosmopolitanism and the Nation State (1907). Still, the fact that they
are interdependent and intertwined makes it difficult to choose either one.
From the above discussion, it is quite evident that the birth of a nation is
certainly not a sudden occurrence, but a gradual process. It is true that
nations are ‘organic’ (read natural) units bound together by cohesive
cultural traditions and historical processes, which make them relatively
more stable than any political structure. We are now in a position to ask
about, discuss and perceive the status of the United Kingdom, and how we
are to recognize it: as a British nation or a conglomeration of four different
nations—the English, the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish?
 Nation-State and its Formation

The meaning of the term ‘state’ has changed from time to time since the
Greek era. This political concept has undergone a profound change from
city states like Athens and Sparta to nation-states like the USA and India
over the years. At present, the state has been reduced to a high political
concept forming a mere part of the nation-state, thereby acquiring a
political meaning that is much narrower than that of a nation. A modern
nation represents multiple aspects of the human personality. Ideas are
nurtured through a particular language, culture, habits and lifestyle, as well
as aspirations and sentiments. The nation overwhelms the individual with
its persuasive power, while the state subjugates the individual to its
coercive authorities. The state dictates whereas the nation adopts. Over the
passage of time, a nation either transforms into a state or a state graduates
into a nation-state due to social, ethnic and cultural factors, besides
political aspirations. One of the essential attributes thrust into the melting
pot of a nation-state is the willingness of the people to live together. Some
people consider the question of Tibetans in India in this light. In the same
vein, Islamic fundamentalists threaten to wreck the unity and
determination of Kashmiri people to exist harmoniously in the Indian
subcontinent.

In a nutshell, a nation-state seeks to unite people subjected to its rule by

means of cultural homogenization. Not all nation-states are homogeneous;
some may contain various minority and ethnic groups within their
territory. For example, the UK comprises of recognizable nations—Scots
and Welsh—as sub-units of a larger nation-state. So a nation-state is
defined in the present-day scenario as having an official language, a
bureaucracy to harmonize society, a distinct system of law, and a currency
system of its own. Hence, a nation-state's prime role remains to nurture
cultural confluence and strengthen political unity.

Nationalism: Then and Now

Nationalism as a concept has been a very abstract one. Political thinkers all
around the world have tried and are still trying to provide it with a concrete
base. As far as Western nationalism is concerned, it attempts to organize
the people politically, and its counterpart, the Eastern version, emphasizes
the establishment of an identity which speaks volumes about the people's
cultural sameness. However, ‘Nations’ and ‘Nationalism’ still remain
central phenomena in the modern world. They feed into, and are fed by,
many social, cultural, economic, and political factors and processes. Most of
the world's events (good or bad) involve some kind of nationalistic
aspiration which varies from the attainment of freedom to the search for a
national identity, or acquisition of a national status. Nationalism to many is
a ‘sentiment’ or a ‘condition of mind’ of a group of people with a similar
history, language, culture, or lifestyle, and is considered to be based on the
political belief that a large and loose political group subscribes to. In the
words of Hans Kohn (2000), ‘Nationalism is a state of mind, but it is also
an ideological project since the group that adheres to it also seeks to find
expression in a sovereign state.’ This means that nationalism is broadly a
state of mind. It is a powerful idea that forces a person or a group of people
to translate their ambitious pursuit towards a motherland into an organized
activity, which ultimately results in the formation of a sovereign state. If we
look over the chapters of history, we come across many such instances
when people came together and found a power that brought about rapid
and radical changes, upturned thrones, and caused social and political
revolutions. Rebellion against the atrocities of the feudal lords led to a
decline of feudalism, which also paved the way to the era of enlightenment.
Hence, the period of renaissance began. Therefore, nationality is not a term
coined to define the mere identity of people; rather, it acts as a force or a
drive to meet the desired ends and find expression in that achievement.

In its inception as an ideology, nationalism is firmly rooted in Europe.

During the period 1870–1914, great developments took place which cast its
effect all over the world. Great historical upheavals such as the French
Revolution, the great Unification of Italy, Unification of Germany, the
Russian Revolution, the Crimean War, Russo-Japanese War, 1904–05, all
played an important role in paving the way to national bonding and
creating nationalistic fervour. In fact, nationalism and sovereignty go hand
in hand. Nationalism has been seen to further the impulses and attitudes of
the masses. At the same time, it has also been a potent force in justifying
the authority of a state, legitimizing its rule and using force against its own
citizens as well as other states as in the case of Nazi Germany or fascist
Italy. Interestingly, nationalism plays a twin role at two different levels—
intra-nationally and internationally. Intra-nationally, it promotes unity and
gains sympathy from all fellow members. Internationally, however, it
suffers from various complexities. It gathers mutual distrust and hate from
other countrymen who fall outside the ‘national’ orbit. Here, nationalism
not only promotes sectarianism, but also divides the world on a cultural
basis at times. However, world history shows us that in general all kinds of
nationalism, whether Western or Eastern, remain tolerant towards each
other. The only exception is fascism, which as a political practice pushed
nationalism too far.

A nationalistic struggle often gets transformed into a natural community,

which is inclined to live under one political roof. What drives people is the
notion of independence and the right to demand an equal standing with
others in the world order. Nationalism is the motivating factor in modern
politics because the modern state is truly a nation-state. However, even
rooted facts like the above can be shaken and different aspects emerge for
which there are no explanations; and I feel that makes it more interesting.
The Lebanon case, embedded as it is with ideological contradictions and
internal historical social conflicts, is perhaps the best example to bring out
the irony and enrich our understanding of nationalism in a non-European
context.

BOX 3.2  THE LEBANON CASE

Under the Ottomans, the region bordering the Eastern Mediterranean was divided
into semi-autonomous enclaves ruled by an Emir or Sheikh mostly appointed by
the Sultan. When Europe, especially England and France, threw out an economic
and military challenge to a decaying empire, Lebanon became a fertile ground to
accelerate the fall of the Ottoman Empire and witness the advent of Western
modernization. The Maronites, a major Christian sect, was the first to fan the
flames of nationalism. They were regarded as people under the protection of
Islamic law, Ahl al-Dimmah, and were eager to subscribe to this new ideology of
nationalism which preached self-determination and independence. However, The
Druze, a traditional elite sect of landowners, perceived nation-building under the
Maronites as hegemonic and a serious threat to their long-held authority, and
feared that they would become a minority. For obvious reasons Lebanese
nationalism was not accepted by other inhabitants as enthusiastically as among the
Maronites. The strongest objection came from the Sunni Muslims who advocated a
larger concept of Arab nationalism, Al-ummah, as an alternative. Soon, Phoenician
and Arab history assumed centre-stage to replace the Ottoman concept of an
Islamic nation. Now Arabism was to be reconciled with the new nation. No one
was able to bridge the gap even though many similarities could be laid. Years after
the end of its lengthy civil war, Lebanon's instability is impeding its reconstruction
and recovery. These primordial concepts remain powerful, if not dominant,
elements in defining a Lebanese nation that encompasses all people regardless of
their religious or clan affiliations. The current Lebanese conflict is rooted in an
effort to merge those concepts and elevate national identity above the rest.

Within the Asian panorama, the Indian freedom struggle is a classic

example of the intense love people have for their motherland. The course of
the Indian freedom struggle was influenced by renaissance and
reformation, which further strengthened the emotional attachment people
had to their motherland. The socio-religious undertones of ‘Shakti’ worship
or the ‘Ganapati’ festival transformed into deeply patriotic movements like
‘Bande Maataram’. Such emotional attachment to the motherland further
inspired Indians to liberate themselves from the shackles of British
imperialism. Ultimately India emerged as the largest democracy in the
world.

The modern world portrays a weak image of birth of a nation. After the
disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1989, around 20 or more new nations
have been formed. The creation of these nations, however, was not the
result of nationalistic aspirations or any enduring movement, but was
rather built around some contingent ethnic or cultural formation backed by
a political institution. So the concept of ‘Nation’ no longer rests on a feeling
of self-determination (based on will), where the self was ‘national’ in its
outlook. Hence, the nation remained only a product of some political crisis.

Another thread of modern thought pioneered by Michael Billig (1995) and

termed ‘Banal Nationalism’ contends that nationalism is no longer a remote
concern, but is constantly ‘flagged’ in the media through routine symbols
and habits of language. It is reinforced in daily lives and deeply ingrained in
contemporary consciousness. The term Nationalism thus continues to be a
major ideological force in the contemporary world, regularly conveyed
through small, familiar turns of phrase. These reminders operate beyond
the level of conscious awareness and even today, patriotic feeling runs high
and people are prepared to make sacrifices for the defence of their nation.
Nationalism has many facets to it, and to understand the very essence of
this ideology, one has to fully fathom five main approaches.

Approaches to Nationalism

An approach generally connotes a particular way of perceiving things or

one's own mode of interpretation of a topic or subject. In contemporary
times, a lot has been written on the theme of nationalism. However, there
are few political thinkers who have had a great impact on the debates
surrounding different issues of nationalism. These approaches provide
insights into the various thought processes surrounding nationalism, and
are presented here to familiarize the readers with them. I have
compartmentalized the approaches into five different kinds: Organic,
Operational, Descriptive, Modern and Ethno-Symbolism. Broadly speaking,
these approaches signify and encompass all aspects of nationalism, but as
the subject is so vast and has so many facets, there still remains more room
for thought.

Organic

This is one of the most basic, popular, and to some extent crudest approach
to Nationalism. I call it ‘basic’ because it is the most common perception
held by people about nationalism. It is ‘crude’ because it (generally) lacks
theoretical inputs; rather, it is instinctive and based on presumptions. This
approach is too value-laden in comparison to others, which are mostly fact-
based. The bearers of this approach placed nationalism in an imaginative
category where its origin remains unknown. Organic means natural. Hence,
it implies that nationalism is as old as nature, and thus needs no factual or
empirical proof to establish itself. Within this approach are two factions,
those who see nation as a natural part of the human condition, falling
outside time and history (the Primordialists); and those who regard nation
as natural, yet feels that it falls within the historical record (the
Perennialists). Primordialists like Pierre Van Den Berghe in Race and
Ethnicity: A Sociological Perspective (1978) opine that nations originate
from tribes and are held together by sentiments of kinship. This further
gives rise to genetic reproduction within the group. Here, primordialism is
seen to conflate cultural with biological groups. The deep-rooted and
natural sentiments of belonging to extended families are transferred to
ethnic and national communities through the recognition of cultural signs
of similarity, and a reflection of their biological lines of descent. Historian
Clifford Geertz in The Integrative Revolution (1963) resorts to cultural
primordialism while distinguishing between primordial and civil ties. For
Geertz, primordial attachments tend to be overriding, but it is a power that
results from the importance that human beings attribute to cultural givens
rather than from any property of the ties themselves. Another
contemporary version proposed by Anthony D. Smith (1986) is where
ethnic identity can be traced back to centuries, where an ‘ethnie’, as defined
by him, would be ‘named human populations with shared ancestry, myths,
histories, cultures, having an association with a specific territory and a
sense of solidarity’. This is simply to say that ethnic identity has existed in a
non-institutional manner. Even today, to a greater degree, many people
perceive nationalism keeping in mind their own ethnic origins and cultural
situatedness. Also, the nation is seen as primordial and natural, part of the
human existence, which is not bound by time or history. For them,
nationalism has existed since time immemorial.

The perennialist pays close attention to the record and transformations

informed by history. The basic premise remains that nations are found in
every period of history; they are immemorial but not natural. Their
existence can be traced and mapped. There can be two versions of this
form. One, ‘continuous perennialism’, believes nations to be immemorial,
but consider their roots to lie mostly in the pre-modern era. In The
Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion and Nationalism (1997),
Adrian Hastings disagrees that the date of commencement of the nation
(nationhood) is the French Revolution, as defined by modernists. Instead,
he traces the historical record to the high middle ages, with the exception of
Armenians, Jews and Persians in the ancient world. The second version, as
emphasized by John Armstrong, is known as ‘recurrent perennialism’.
In Nations before Nationalism (1982), he adopts a cyclical view of the
emergence of the nation. He does not really differentiate ethnic from
national identities, but sees modern nations as continuous with earlier
cycles of ethnic and religious identity; the emergence of nations is not
something novel, resulting from the forces of modernization, but a
precipitate of a confluence of factors that have been forging ethnic and
other identities over the longue duree since the demise of the ancient
world. Susan Reynolds, a medieval historian, in Medieval Origines
Gentium and the Community of the Realm (1983), finds a middle path to
the debate between the retrospective and teleological perspective on the
making of national identities. She prefers to use the term ‘Regnal’ to
characterize political connections among medieval Western kingdoms.
Perennialists like Joshua Fishman in Social Theory and Ethnography:
Neglected Perspectives on Language and Ethnicity in Eastern
Europe (1980) attribute the birth of nationhood to a process of
authentication, whereby the citizens of that nation adjust to the changes in
their own ethnic identification. Thereafter it does not remain a mere
biological need, but becomes more of a psychological one. This approach, as
mentioned earlier, is the most widely accepted by people the world over.
The understanding of nationalism often involves the usage of phrases
like ‘glorified history’, ‘national heroes’, ‘war greatness’, ‘golden ages’, and
of course ‘Nationalists’.

Operational

At a functional level, nationalism is primarily seen as fulfilling three

different roles. First—and the most important—is attending to certain
psychological functions. Psychological functions are mainly related to
people's craving for a distinct identity. Nationalism provides such an
identity to people. During times of declining religious belief and tradition,
the consequent loss of identity leads to what is popularly known as an
‘identity crisis’. People are often identified by their ethnicity and language,
through which they are separated from outsiders. Nationalism invariably
marks this borderline. Ethnic conflicts, along with modern urban growth,
have a direct bearing on the development of nationalism. Of course, this
does not hold vis-à-vis the situation in the United States, where ethnic
conflict and growth remain separate to a great extent. Ethnic language
identities are often used to exclude outsiders from limited resources such as
jobs and housing. For instance, the fear of losing their identity recently led
Assamese people to raise their voices against Bengali-speaking
Bangladeshis. There was no less importance attached to the loss of vocation
and cultural invasion. They were apprehensive of being swamped by illegal
immigrants from Bangladesh. Ernest Gellner's (1983) argument that
culture replaces social structure as the provider of identity has shaped the
way identity is seen in the modern world. Apart from providing a
psychological blanket, there are a variety of functions that national identity
claims to perform in a society, such as job reservation or political
mobilization.

The second and most popular role of nationalism is promoting

modernization (although it has frequently been used for the purposes of
anti-modernization as well). It is true that after the ideas of nationalism
and modernity were established firmly, people used the concept of
nationalism to support their notions of modernization. While nationalism
is not the sole instrumental in the project of modernization, one can
perceive it as a strong component of modernity when one goes beyond
functional explanations to structural accounts.

Lastly, nationalism is considered to serve class interests from a Marxist

perspective. A connection between the interests of the bourgeoisie and
those of the nationalists can quite often be discerned. When the bourgeoisie
does not side with the nationalists, it aligns itself with the other class. A
bourgeoisie can develop a political identity and capacity through the
existing pattern of economic exploitation, which can be further spread with
the help of nationalism. From a historical perspective, it can be said that
the role of capitalism has undergone certain changes. There is something
different about the structure of the bourgeoisie as a class and its relations
with other classes. These new ideas are evidenced through the existence of
self-help enterprises, which are a part of cultural institutions like dissenting
religious groups, educational bodies or professional associations. The
bourgeoisie emerges through the parliament's structure of public opinion in
the field of politics. The bourgeoisie gets to govern through the economic
and cultural influences they exert without directly exercising power. This
phenomenon is intimately related to the significant role played by cultural–
political identities, which remain a merely functional component of
national identity. Leaving aside the validity of the argument, here one
moves from the functional to the structural, which connects the central role
of the national idea (nationalism) to modernity.

Descriptive

As is obvious from the term, the detailed narration of historical accounts is

what constitutes the heart of this approach. It is proclaimed as universal
and essential by all historians the world over. Not only do they take the rise
of nationalism for granted, but they also like to tell the tale of its rise. All
such stories begin with the traditional, pre-national state of affairs, which
may or may not be informed of nationalism for historians. Evidently the
‘national history’ of Germany begins with the Holy Roman Empire of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, much before the unification took
place. The historians, after mentioning the weaknesses of the traditional
imperial regimes, turn their attention to more dynamic groups or
institutions, and the bearers of modern ideas and practices like
entrepreneurs and educated officials. By doing so, they try to explain how
traditional institutions crumbled in the face of modern forces, and how
such forces come together and reinforce each other. In the middle of the
nineteenth century when national movements were taking shape,
nationalists played an important role in elaborating such stories. Historians
like Von Treitschke and Von Sybel indulged in a reinterpretation of German
history that was similar to Droysen's interpretation of Alexander the Great
and his invasion of the civilized parts of Greece. Academic historians have
conclusively accepted the descriptive as the correct approach to presenting
historical accounts like the emergence, expansion, and success of national
movements. Imaginative skills, flowery language and glorification of the
past make up the different faces of the narrator's dice. The French
philosopher Ernest Renan in What is a nation? (1996) represents this
genre when he sees a nation as a ‘soul’ embedded with past memories,
clutched to the present by people's desire to live together. According to
Renan, the past is full of ancestral heroism and devotion to glory. It is in the
present that the past is brought back to life under new banners of solidarity
and a ‘daily plebiscite’. Such narratives can be used to present a breakdown
of the last multinational empire, the Soviet Union, and its satellite states of
Eastern Europe. This in fact means that the rise of modernity heralds the
fall of the traditional. To this, Modernists pose a question: is it really
necessary to theorize the sequence of events to provide a true picture of
what is happening? Earlier, the descriptive form had become an important
component of the national movement, projecting it in the form of progress
with consequences to be realized in the future. Later, more conservative
narratives of critical forms of nationalism continue to present the story as
one that is yet to be finished. In this manner, the descriptive mode could
support liberal, conservative and radical forms of nationalism.

Modern

The modernists view the dawn of nations as a recent and novel

phenomenon. It is generally the outcome of the nationalistic pursuits
undertaken. To modernists, nationalism preceded nations; hence nations
do not have a very long history to claim. Nations are constructed and are a
result of a planned and conscious move. Thus, acquiring membership to a
certain group doesn't remain a mere quality; rather, it increases the
individual's capacity for doing. As Ernest Gellner (1983) would put it,
nationalism ‘invents nations where they do not exist’. The staunch
supporters of this kind of approach are Ernest Gellner, Elie Kedourie, Eric
Hobsbawm, John Brueilly and Benedict Anderson. Gellner speculates that
as the waves of modernization hit Western Europe, culture acted as the
binding agent in achieving the ends of industrialization. Gellner, however,
feels that it is the linguistic element that is most important. Given the
unevenness of modernization, it is possible to encounter conflicts of an
ethnic nature which forces urbanized peasants to break away from the old
polity and move towards the construction of their own nation. Elie
Kedourie, Benedict Anderson and Eric Hobsbawm subscribe to the idea of
nations being modern inventions rather than old perennial institutions;
Anderson and Hobsbawm, in fact, provide the cultural dimension of a
broadly Marxian account. In Nationalism (1960, 1993) Kedourie speculates
that nationalism is a modern European invention and advocates ‘National
self-determination’. This concept acknowledges that it is the nationalist
ideologies that mobilize the masses to secure a self-rule, thereby bringing in
greater stability and secular progress. Whenever Imperial discrimination
and enlightenment philosophy undermined traditional communities
(family, religion, etc.), it always provided fertile ground for marginalized
sections to rebel. This historical truth is evident in all revolutionary
nationalisms, as seen in the German Romantic intelligentsia and Asian and
African anti-colonial intellectuals.

The nation is an ‘imagined community’ and a cultural invention, according

to Benedict Anderson (1991). ‘Imagined community’ denotes a sovereign,
united and artificial boundary, with little or no interaction amongst the
inhabitants. He argues that the real factor behind the creation of a nation is
mass communication—‘print capitalism’. Similarly, Eric Hobsbawm (1983)
distinguishes between two phases of nationalism, one, civic-political
nationalism which flourished in Europe between 1830–70, and second, the
ethno-linguistic type which flourished from 1870–1914. Although he cannot
see any connection between the two, both nationalisms are composed of
‘invented traditions’—of national history, culture and mythology, which are
actually created by state elites and capitalists to exercise greater control
over the masses without being overtly visible. The political explanation of
nationalism is also found in the writings of dependency theorists like Tom
Nairn—The Breakup of Britain: Crisis and Neo-Nationalism (1977);
Miroslav Hroch—Social Preconditions of National Revival in
Europe (1985); and Michael Hechter—Rational Choice Theory and the
Study of Ethnic and Race Relations (1998). The centre-periphery models
tend to tie the advent of nations and nationalism to the economic
development of ‘uneven capitalism’ and modernization.

Partha Chatterjee (1991, 1995), Phillip Schlesinger (1987, 1992), Homi

Bhabha (1990) and Nira Yuval Davis (1997), to name a few, are concerned
with post-modern development. The works of these theorists mark the
dissolution of nation-states and the obsolescence of nationalism in varying
degrees.

Ethno-symbolism
As the term suggests, ethno-symbolism connotes the way in which symbols,
myths, memories and traditions help to preserve and determine identities.
Rather than talking about the historical moorings of the emergence of
nations, this approach hints at the recurrences and continuities between
pre-modern and modern ideas. Hence, the emphasis is more on the cultural
antecedents of nations. Pioneered by Anthony D. Smith (2009), this
approach has also been lauded by sociological historians like John
Hutchinson (2000) and John Armstrong (1982), who interrogate the
sociological significance of cultural elements in regenerating the nation.
Ethno-symbolism, a synthesis of modernist and traditional views, is
concerned with the nature of ethnic groups and nations, and the need to
consider their symbolic dimensions. It is a cyclical concept. The ethno-
cultural symbols/elements keep returning to strengthen ethnic boundaries,
and hence contribute to the persistence of ethnic identity in determining
one's national identity. Even historical medievalists like Adrian Hastings
and John Gillingham, despite questioning the historical roots of a modern
nation, believe in the continuity and endurance of ethnic symbols. As
Donald Horowitz (1985) and Joshua Fishman (1980) would agree, to
analyse the formation of modern nations without referring to their ethnic
base/ roots is to prune that formation. To this, modernists like John
Brueilly in Approaches to Nationalism (1996) or Eric Hobsbawm (1990)
would counter that there could be no possible linkages between proto-
national communities and modern nationalisms unless there was a
continuous dynastic rule like that of Tsarist Russia. In modern times, social
clubs, where folk tales are narrated, theatrical presentations of
mythological accounts take place, or folk traditions revived, try to re-
establish ethnic unity and further the strong ethnic boundaries.

Forms of Nationalism

There are several instances in world history where nationalism can be

evidenced in one form or another. Nationalism manifests itself either as
part of the official state ideology or as a popular non-state movement, and
may be expressed along civic, ethnic, cultural, religious or ideological lines.
Nationalism can be broadly categorized under certain heads, which stem
from politics, religion, culture, ethnicity, historical struggles, etc., and are
presented in Table 3.1.

 
Table 3.1 Forms of Nationalism

It is very difficult to attempt a strict division or compartmentalize the

contents of Table 3.1, as they tend to overlap or are at times repetitive. Such
categories are not mutually exclusive, with many nationalist movements
combining some or all of these elements in varying degrees. Besides the
types mentioned above, there are other forms of nationalism, like
ideological, pan-nationalism, legal and Romantic, which have also affected
societies the world over. In this regard, it will be pertinent to mention Hans
Kohn and his unique classification of various forms of nationalism
as ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’ in his work The Idea of Nationalism (1944).
While the Western or ‘Civic’ form has always been socially and politically
inclined towards establishing the pillars of sovereignty, the Eastern or
‘Ethnic’ form seeks the doctrines of self-identity and strives to defend and
protect the unique culture of the community.

National Identity

‘Committing yourself is a way of finding out who you are. A man finds his
identity by identifying. A man's identity is not best thought of as the way in
which he is separated from his fellows but the way in which he is united
with them.’ This quote, by Robert Terwilliger, adequately explains the
essence of a citizen's identity.

The phrase ‘I am’ refers to the uniqueness in an individual's character. This

‘uniqueness’, whether in terms of language, race, religion or lifestyle,
probably makes up one's identity. It also presupposes the existence of the
‘other’. It is very difficult to define identity in precise terms. When identity
is qualified by the term national, it acquires a fixed meaning that is quite
different from both the terms taken separately. To put it simply, national
identity is the collective identity that people acquire through identifying
with the nation. The issue of identity is definitely not a new one; earlier,
though, identity was restricted to the political arena. The issue of identity as
a social question has emerged out of modernity. It is only in recent times
(eighteenth century onwards) that individuals have become conscious of
their selves. It (identity) marks the exclusivity of an individual from the rest
of her/his fellow members. It also involves the identification of identical
attributes or properties within the group. Hence, it presupposes a dialogical
recognition of each other. So, the identity that originates from the
interaction between an inhabitant and his nation is called national identity.
The essence of national identity, when defined, is an expression of
belongingness, an ideal of shared values, proof of a distinct membership,
and affiliation to a particular group.

While identity has no legal or juridical basis, it often becomes the subject of
confrontation and struggle. Citizenship, in contrast to identity, has more to
do with status, one that is expressed legally. Although identity too can be
considered a status (social), it is universally accepted as the basis of
recognition demanded by various groups. However, citizenship and identity
are similar in that they are both ‘group markers’. While citizenship marks
the membership to one polity from another, identity marks groups from
each other on the basis of their social and cultural weight. The correlation
between citizenship and national identity will be taken up later in this
chapter.

Markers of National Identity

What makes us different as individuals? Have you ever thought about the
grounds on which you claim that you and your friends are
similar/different? National identity is often equated with the attributes
shared among individuals in a particular group. The various markers
forming the basis of national identity are presented in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1 Markers of National Identity

All the markers stated above have been pressed into service by particular
collectivities to assert their national identity. These indicators develop into
a strong bond, paving the way to the various types of nationalisms
illustrated above. Often these markers become the sole reason behind or
basis for a nationalistic struggle; for example, ‘race’ was the sole reason
behind Black nationalism in the USA, or Welsh nationalism in the UK.
According to my perception, while all the markers are important, race and
language are more pronounced and unequivocal, as can be seen across the
history of nationalism.

However, the Swiss nation is an exception. Switzerland, despite having

three major languages—French, German and Italian—has always lived in
complete harmony, and the languages have coexisted peacefully outside the
confines of any nationalistic architecture. Another classic example
highlighting the importance of these indicators, in particular political
traditions, customs and practices, and race, is nationalism in the UK.
Bound by conventions and age-old traditions, the UK is considered a closed
society where age-old customs gloriously unite the people.

Forms of National Identity

National identity takes two forms—cultural and political.

Cultural Form

The idea that nations are essentially ethnic or cultural entities has claimed
universal acceptance. This idea can be traced back to the writings of Herder
and Fichte, who emphasized that it is the appreciation of one's culture that
lies behind the political quest for gaining statehood. Hence, this form
equates national identity with volksgeist—a concept first put forward by
German folklorist and romanticist Johann Gottfried Herder, and associated
with national, racial or ethnic stereotypes based on generalizations, often
exhibited through collective memories, myths, customs and traditions.
Among contemporary thinkers advocating this theory are Charles Taylor
(1994) and Michael Sandel (1998) of the communitarian clan. ‘Civilizations
are not god's gifts, but an achievement. It provides sense of identity and
security to people where they live a life of cultured men—within a
community’ (Taylor). The Communitarians believe that solidarity
is important among those who share the same historical traditions or
customs. They also stress the capacity of a group to confer identity upon
those who are otherwise left isolated. Cultural embeddedness provides an
individual with stability and a sense of belongingness. This belongingness
or ‘collective identity’ becomes the national identity. For these individuals,
collective identity overrides the individual identity. National identity is
considered synonymous with one's membership to a particular community.
Groups or communities are formed on the basis of various markers, as
explained in Figure 3.1. These cultural forms also proclaim that a shared
‘national’ identity is necessary to motivate citizens to work together in the
name of justice. On the whole, a cultural form indicates belongingness to
one nation, and taking pride in it. It is based on group interest, fostered
through a common language, culture, habits and lifestyle, and even
common religious celebrations. These are the indicators of social
cohesiveness that ultimately generate a feeling of togetherness. The
political community also becomes an essential institution in the promotion
of a collective identity, which subjugates the notion of selfhood among
individuals. A contemporary example would be that of Quebec. Thus,
the national in national identity essentially remains cultural to a large
extent, finding expression in political institutions.

Political Form

The political form of national identity refers to the membership to a

political community whereby members share and exercise political power
in equal proportion to other members. National identity stems from
political participation and carries with it the responsibility of self-
governance through a deliberative mechanism. Thinkers like Jurgen
Habermas and David Miller have overemphasized this aspect of political
identity as against that based on ethnicity, culture, etc. The universal value
of equity and equal participation is based on sharing and availing equal
opportunities to reflect one's political opinion. This selfless political
commitment to collective welfare has been lauded by thinkers like
Habermas as the real significance of national identity. How important this
form is can be understood from the fact that persons of Indian origin have
been able to occupy high political positions in countries like Fiji, Guyana,
and the province(s) of West Indies and Canada, regardless of their ethnic
and cultural identities. This form also endorses the classical Greek
distinction between the ‘private’ and the ‘public’ sphere, where private
stands for particularism and public for universalism. As delineated by
Habermas in Legitimation Crisis (1973), the public sphere is where
subjects participate as equals in rational discussions in pursuit of truth and
the common good. He states that prior to the eighteenth century, European
culture had been dominated by a ‘representational culture’, where one party
sought to represent itself by overwhelming its subjects. Habermas
identified representational culture as corresponding to the feudal stage of
development, marked by the appearance of a public sphere. In the culture
characterized by the public sphere, there was a marked public space
controlled by the state, where individuals exchanged views and knowledge.
In Habermas’ view, the growth of coffee houses, reading clubs, newspapers,
etc., in eighteenth-century Europe marked the gradual replacement of
representational culture with public sphere culture. This culture marked
the beginning of the formation of distinct identities based on knowledge
and political discourse, rather than on mere cultural ties.

David Miller's republican conception of citizenship and national identity

(2000) is seen as a middle path between the communitarian and liberal
conceptions. He argues that in the republican form, the citizen is ‘someone
who is actively involved in shaping the future direction of his or her
society’. According to him, the republican conception better accommodates
cultural diversity than the other versions ‘by virtue of its ability to draw
groups who initially have very different priorities into public debate, and to
find compromise solutions to political issues that members of each group
can accept’. Thus, he advocates deliberative democracy in modern societies.
He maintains that a democratic system should be deliberative, to the extent
that the decisions taken should reflect the open discussions between
participants. This would not only enhance the quality of citizenry, but
would also be significant in protecting distinct identities.

Correlation Between Citizenship and National Identity

To study the complexity of linking citizenship with national identity, I

would recommend an overview of the patterns instrumental in establishing
a link between these two concepts. There are three popular patterns:
‘hegemonic’, ‘uniformity’ and ‘pluralist’. The first pattern is often associated
with feudal states, where a dominant group establishes its cultural practices
as the ‘National Culture’. The only option that other cultural groups (which
are supposedly inferior) have is to either assimilate within the dominant
culture, or accept their fate. The gradual fading of feudal states with the
emergence of capitalist states led to a redrawing of the existing relationship
between citizenship and national identity. One such example would be that
of old colonial empires.

The second pattern is called the uniformity pattern. Here, the emphasis
shifts from culture to the nation, and its connections with a political
organization called the state. This pattern has given rise to two exclusive yet
coexisting schools of thought. One believes that each nation must have its
own state, that is, ‘national and political boundaries should co-exist’. The
second states that an individual's national identity revolves around her/his
urge to preserve her/his own language, customs and culture. This does not
necessarily mean that each nation should have a separate sovereign state,
as this school of thought is of the firm belief that the co-existence of various
nations under one political roof is possible. A example would be the UK and
Switzerland.

The pluralist pattern is the one most popularly advocated by socialist states.
It presupposes a tussle between nations that are historic, and those that are
non-historic. While this pattern does not deny the coexistence of various
nations within one state, its obvious preference is for historic nations. The
problem faced by such nations relates to the hierarchization of nations. In
every multi-national socialist state, there has emerged an inequality or
great national chauvinism, which has contributed to their disintegration.
The former USSR, which suffered a similar crisis, disintegrated in 1989.

In this democratic era (which, however, is not a universal practice), it is

clear that the hegemonic model has been delegitimized. and hence has lost
its significance. Even the pluralist model has gone down as a failed
experiment. The survival of the ‘one nation—one state’ slogan has come
into question. These patterns hint at a changing relationship between
identities that first become national, and then transform into citizenship.

Citizenship and national identity are commonly understood as legal and

political concepts, respectively. Often, though, they are used
interchangeably to mean one and the same thing. While the national
identity of an individual is determined according to his citizenship status in
the concerned state, the reverse is not always true. Citizenship has a legal
connotation and implication, and only a part of it is associated with
national identity. The other aspects of citizenship imply political rights to
self-governance, and other fundamental rights such as the right to vote; the
right to contest elections; the right to occupy elective public offices; rights
to state protection against violation of fundamental rights, etc. The exercise
of these rights are considered routine affairs, and therefore citizens fail to
measure their import. However, when one is voting or contesting elections,
one understands the serious implications of citizenship. During the Iran-
Iraq war, the Government of India carried out an unprecedented, large-
scale evacuation of Indian citizens from the war zone through more than
200 sorties executed by Air India planes. This is a splendid example of the
state protection granted to citizens, which stems from their right to life.
Similarly, the protection of citizens’ interests is the continuous duty of
Embassies, High Commissions and consulates in foreign countries.
National identity carries with it the political affiliation to, and the friendly
or unfriendly image of, the state of which one is a national. While an Indian
national has a friendly image in Russia or the Maldives, it is not quite so in
Pakistan. The political undertones of national identity comes into play in
situations of illegal entry, the grant and extension of visas, grant of
permission for trade, etc.

However, the correlation between citizenship and national identity is

undergoing a profound change. The classical implications of concepts that
are at times interchangeable are being slowly eroded; the latest in this
regard would be the case of M. F. Hussain. Sometimes national boundaries
are not taken as guarantees of safety, but as stumbling blocks on the path of
free travel and freedom of trade. Restrictions on the repatriation of one's
hard-earned money to another country or taxation thereon, customs
duties, etc., are considered hindrances to the progress towards global
citizenship and a world state. Legally speaking, certain political rights
accruing through citizenship are restricted by age; for example, no one can
exercise their franchise before the age of 18 in India. National identities,
though, are recognized irrespective of age. All said and done, there exist a
very subtle distinction between these two familiar terms. However,
interchangeability in their use has not affected or eroded the legal and
political significance associated with both concepts/terms.

Recent Debates

Recent developments concerning citizenship and national identity have

attracted wide attention, either in connection with conformity to the
traditional concept, or attempts at its reform. The following have caught the
attention of most political scientists.

Civic Republicanism: The substance of Republican politics is

interdependence; hence, the central strands in civic republicanism are
freedom, civic virtues, participation, the common good, and public versus
private interests. It began with the Graeco-Roman writers, who placed
public participation, civic pride and discussion at the heart of the body
politic: the Greeks defined as an idiot anyone who was not an active citizen
or who had no time for public affairs. This problem has been carried over
by the critical school theorists, who perceive active citizenry as a sine qua
non for a healthy society.

Diversity: Diversity and group difference are features of almost all but the
most insulated societies. All modern states face the problem of diversity,
even if they do not willingly endorse it. This can be seen from the
conflicting claims expressed through various social movements by groups
who share identities and follow practices conferring such identities. Such
groups, representing different interests, fight for social inclusion, exclusive
identity and recognition. In a narrow sense citizenship is exclusionary, and
helps to ignite the flames of diverse socio-political problems.
Teaching in schools: The purpose of education, it has been said, is to
make people aware and enlightened. Yet many have lost sight of this
ultimate objective of education, as a means to a better life. Education is no
exception to the over-politicization of every aspect of socio-economic life.
Today, state control over education has degenerated into interference by
politicians who exert a vice-like grip on all matters, from the contents of a
course to the appointment of teachers. For instance, during the reign of the
BJP-led NDA government, under the ministry of Murli Manohar Joshi a
course revision of history took place, highlighting the party's political
agenda (Hindutva) and neglecting all other important historical accounts.
In Sri Lanka, the civil war has led to the erosion of a value-based education,
which could have promoted tolerance, free debate and rational discussion.

Dual Citizenship to Multiple Citizenship: The concept of citizenship

underwent a profound change within the ambit of the constitutional decree
of the USA, evolving and establishing ‘Dual Citizenship’. Although state and
federal citizenship in the US have been constantly debated, the question of
political convenience has taken an upper hand in maintaining this system
in addition to the maintenance of separate identities and equal status of the
federating units. This question has recently gained prominence. After M. F.
Hussain gave up his citizenship rights, policymakers and the media in India
deliberated the possibility of granting a dual citizenship status to Indian
citizens. The recent celebration of ‘Pravasi Bhartiya Divas’ is clear
manifestation of the Indian diaspora's intention to accept dual citizenship.
With the emergence of the European Union, the question of multiple
citizenship has cropped up. This involves not only border security issues,
but also the welfare and aids extended to a citizen, which might be affected.

Changing Grounds of the Grant of Citizenship: As far as the grounds

for grant of citizenship is concerned, recent developments in the UK are
noteworthy. Significant changes to the process, whereby citizenship is to be
acquired by naturalization, have been made by the UK government through
the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. The conditions for
granting citizenship keep changing due to the threat of terrorist strikes,
disloyalty, problems of unemployment leading to job scarcity for its own
citizens, etc. The most recent development in this regard is the screening of
citizenship applications on the grounds of voluntary social work,
community service and the absence of a criminal record. Israel made news
with its grant of the Law of Return, only to be applicable to Jews or their
offspring and not to the non-Jews who opted to convert—even if the
conversion followed Orthodox procedure in line with state religious courts.
The proposed legislation would broaden the authority of the Chief
Rabbinate in Israel, giving them an upper hand on matters of conversion,
and in the process would also amalgamate conversion law and citizenship
law.

Peculiar Politico-economic Problems Affecting India: The issues

concerning citizenship in India are: the statelessness affecting the Tibetan
people who migrated to India along with the Tibetan government in exile
under the leadership of the Dalai Lama. However, unlike the acceptance of
the erstwhile East and West Pakistan displaced persons (refugees) by the
Indian government, the Tibetan people have not been extended any
political rights. A large number of the Tamil-speaking people from Sri
Lanka who came to India during the civil war have now settled here, and
some of them are now Indian citizens. This question has acquired
complexity due to the political and linguistic aspects affecting the original
inhabitants. The determination of the national identity of Bangladeshis
(Chakma migrants) in Assam is an issue that has of late changed into a
political question. The livelihoods of the Bengali-speaking Bangladeshis in
Assam have come under scrutiny. There is an apprehension that the
Assamese would become minorities in the state. While national boundaries
are being obliterated under the impact of the global village with its world
citizenship, one feels confident that these problems will solve themselves in
the long run.

Post-Nationalism

The wave of nationalism that overtook the world during the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries have waned from the beginning of the twenty-first
century. The factors contributing to a nationalist spirit, beginning with
ethnicity to language through religion and race, are losing their grip in the
face of new socio-economic institutions, which are fast replacing them. The
barriers associated with nationalism are giving way to multi-national
territorial entities like the European Union, and to trans-national regional
organizations like ASEAN. Strict legal restrictions, including for visas, are
being done away with to advance the economic interest of the states
concerned. Better economic prospects are undermining all other ‘national’
considerations, which are now considered narrow and parochial.
Liberalisation is fast overtaking the narrow interests of nation-states. Arash
Abizadeh, in Liberal Nationalist versus Postnational Social Integration:
on the Nation's Ethno-cultural Particularity and Concreteness (2004),
argues that only ‘post nationalist theorists provide a coherent,
democratically motivated theory of multinational democracy’, and that ‘the
viability and desirability of multination federalist arrangements lie in their
capacity maximally to meet the diverse demands of citizens’.

It is now being debated whether socio-political homogeneity will follow the

intricately interwoven economic interests (or prospect thereof) of the
multinational organizations emerging in the world. Of course there are
divisive forces like religious fundamentalism, which stand as bottlenecks in
the way of the formation of such multinational entities. Under the impact of
such multi-state organizations, the meaning of citizenship and national
identity are undergoing a profound change. The avoidance of double
taxation, duty-free entry of goods and commodities, unobstructed
migration of human resources, pooling of resources for fighting dreadful
diseases, engagement in a continuous upgradation of technologies, and an
appreciation of alien cultural traits and traditions constitutes the symptoms
of a new post-nationalist world.

India: A Case Study

India is distinguished by its diversities. Admittedly the Indian case can be

referred to as the most complex, because with its multitudinous cultures it
is virtually a mini-world in itself. Its old identities are fast giving way to new
ones. Globalization and technology have shrunk the world, and at this
juncture it is pertinent to not only ponder the design, make and cut of the
fabric that clothes India, but also examine the soul within.

The task before us is to first familiarize ourselves with the historical

processes involved in the formation of Indian society. There are five
particular phases in which Indian society developed. The initial formation
took place with the ‘accretion of immigrants and dislocation of original
inhabitants’. It began with the coming of the Aryans around 3,500 years
ago, which pushed the original inhabitants—the Dravidians—to not-so-
friendly geographical locations. The extent of the influence the Aryans had
on contemporary India can be inferred from the fact that 83 per cent
Indians are Hindu—a religion widely proclaimed and firmly established by
the Aryans. In fact, India is often referred to as a ‘Hindu country’. Apart
from religion, they have given us social stratification in terms of the ‘Varna
system’, and the mother of all languages, Sanskrit, which about 72 per cent
of Indians are well-acquainted with. This phase shows how an ‘ethnic’
grouping transforms itself into a nation under a new political head.

The second phase of development begins with the Mughal conquests. Islam
as a religion subsequently spread across the country, and today India
stands as the country with the third largest Muslim population in the world.
Urdu—the language most strongly identified with the Muslim population in
India—has been included in the VIII Schedule of our constitution.

The third phase of cultural influence was exerted by the British. The
practices of Christian missionaries led to a limited spread of Christianity as
a religion, which accounts for 2.5 per cent of the total population of India.
The English language, on the other hand, continues to have a powerful
presence in our country, and is the main language of learning and
administration in India.

The fourth major influence is that of the Indian Freedom Struggle. It would
not be an exaggeration to suggest that Indian nationalism and
consciousness as we understand them today were solidified for the first
time during the national liberation movement. It is here that we first refer
to the ‘national’ as a cultural rather than a political concept. The imperial
powers exerted an economic and political domination, as well as cultural
influences on Indian society. The freedom struggle is distinguished by a
unity manifested by a highly heterogeneous population, characterized by
myriad languages and dialects, religions, literature and art.

The last phase was the Partition of India and Pakistan on the basis of
religion. This divide led to the largest transfer of human populations. About
nine million Sikhs and Hindus were displaced, with approximately six
million Muslims leaving the country.

These phases have undoubtedly had a huge influence in shaping our

national identity. However, external influences in the form of India's
neighbouring countries, with whom there is a great deal of cultural
commonality, have also played a role. Nepal, for instance, practices
Hinduism and exhibits a long religious traditional history. Apart from the
socio-cultural similarities, the problem of identification of Nepali citizens in
India and vice-versa remains perplexing. Similarly, while Sri Lankan
Tamils are citizens of Sri Lanka, they participate in and share cultural
values with the Tamils in India. Another case would be of Punjabi Hindus
and Muslims of India and Pakistan. What do these examples suggest?
These hint at the prevailing disjuncture between nation and state in South
Asia. This is because the whole of South Asia shares some historical process
or the other, such as imperialism, great wars or immigration, all of which
India has passed through. Hence, India presents the most baffling of all
cases when it comes to relating citizenship with national identity.

Right from the Mahabharata age when internecine warfare was quite
frequent, ‘India’ was more a cultural concept that bestowed a separate
identity on each of its inhabitants. Despite the political, ethnic and religious
divisions, this national cultural identity with its political undertones has
existed over centuries without being affected by the characteristics usually
associated with the modern state and citizenship. In this context, the
questions that arise are: which India did Alexander the Great invade? And
which India did the Chinese traveller Huang Tsang visit? This ‘India’
perhaps comprised all the princely states mentioned in the Mahabharat.

Here, it will be interesting to take note of a peculiar vocabulary that is often

used with reference to the Indian land—‘Desh’. ‘Desh’ can be understood at
two different levels: one, when it is associated with India as a union of
states, where it is used in connection with one person's geographical
position within a single political administrative unit. It is this that is
demonstrated through active reference to our freedom struggle and
nationalism. Hence the phrases like ‘Desh-prem’ or ‘Desh-Bhakti’ in
patriotic films and historical accounts. Second, ‘Desh’ implies not merely a
territory, but also a common pattern of culture shared by a certain group of
people. This concept of ‘Desh’ is essentially anchored to the notion of a
cultural homeland, that is, a nation. Thus, India is often taken to be a
country with many ‘Desh’. One common idea that both versions hold is that
an individual is either an ‘insider’ or an ‘outsider’. Anyone outside the
boundaries of ‘Desh’ is an alien or foreigner, and hence an outsider. They
are termed ‘videshi’. So from the beginning we built an imaginary world
around ourselves, which fosters fear and distrust of a ‘Videshi’, who does
not share a common identity in terms of either language, culture or lifestyle
with us.

However, there may be situations where the identities of a ‘Deshi’ and

‘Videshi’ coincide, with an outsider merging with the identity of an insider.
Of late there have been various demands for the creation of political
administrative units within the Indian state—like Gorkhaland for the
Nepalese—or the demand to expel migrants from other states, like the
mobilization against Tamils in Bangalore or Biharis in Mumbai. Common
to all these demands is the strong identification of communities within a
specific geographical territory, often referred to as ‘home land’. Hence,
identity in India remains primarily ‘national’ by nature. However, despite
the diversity, India managed to stand united. This feeling of oneness is
attributed to the nationalist feelings attached therein, often exhibited
publicly through statues and pictures of war heroes and national leaders
across cities, elaborate accounts of heroic nationalists in history books,
calendars carrying inspirational photographs and glorified images of the
Indian freedom struggle, etc. These feelings are despite differences in
religion, caste, language, etc., and truly present a ‘national’ picture of a
united India.

India, due to its multifarious persona, encompasses every marker of

national identity, like religion, language and tribe, and to some extent caste.
Although there are many religions practised in India, Hindus form the
majority at 83 per cent, followed by Muslims and Sikhs. In some cases
religion forms the basis of national identity, with groups insisting on
forming a separate sovereign state, for instance, the demand for ‘Khalistan’
by Sikhs. This tendency is also evident among those who claim language or
tribe as the basis of their identity (national), for example the Tamils or
Mizos and Nagas. For other groups, a linguistic identity becomes more
important. This can be seen in the case of tribes who occupy a certain
territory and use a common dialect, and fail to identify any other attribute
as their national identity.

The problem of caste, however, is peculiar to the Indian subcontinent. Of

late, caste has increased in importance. Hinduism has a long history of
casteism, which has led to many riots, protests and change in policy
formations. Unfortunately, politicians today are reaping the benefits of
encouraging caste-based politics and forming one-off parties like the BSP
(Bahujan Samaj Party). The framers of the Indian Constitution guarantee
common citizenship rights irrespective of diverse socio-cultural
backgrounds. However, at times the problem of identification acts as a
hindrance in promoting egalitarianism. This not only breeds internal
tensions, but also poses a serious threat to democratic principles. The
essential fabric of Indian society has always remained multi-national; a
little effort to create awareness among Indians and promote equality among
the existing identities would help to retain this unique, multi-national, yet
democratic face of India.
 Conclusion: The Changing Face of National Identity

The advent of globalization and post-nationalism has certainly ushered in

radical changes in the perception of citizenship and national identity.
National identity no longer remains a homogeneous concept involving
regular markers such as language, race, customs, etc. Today, it signifies a
multidimensional and plural form where being a citizen is not only being a
member of a nation–state, with nationality being the master identity.
Rather, the identity of a modern citizen engulfs various other values, which
directly contribute to make up his identity. So it would be unfair to place
citizenship essentially within the framework of fixed rights and privileges,
because it now entails a broader vision that questions the notions of
difference and identity based on an equal distribution of rights and
privileges.

This shift in the perception of citizenship can be for two reasons. First, the
continued neglect of personalized human experiences has led to a
bitterness among citizens, who consider the very concept of citizenship
unjust and unfair. Second, when we talk of national identity, we should
remember that these experiences have normally engendered a search for
origins and a formation of distinct identities. A failure to recognize this will
only lead to further fragmentation.

The question is: how do we protect these ethnic, social or political identities
at the same time? The challenge is to conceive a new way of governing
ourselves, perhaps by restructuring the conception of citizenship. The new
cultural politics has effectively questioned the master identity imposed by
the modern nation-state. However, the task of democratic societies today is
to recognize the rights of these diverse group in their constitutions.

Through new social movements, the citizenry is demanding a change in the

established norms of citizenship. These new movements and the resultant
cultural politics have propagated numerous social, political and cultural
groups in search of new identification, politicization and solidarity. These
can be seen as efforts to redefine and reconstitute identity through political
and discursive struggles over group rights and values.

I have chosen a couple of important emerging forms which could, in the

future, be decisive vis-à-vis the stature of citizenship and claims of a new
identity. While they may not have been recognized officially, they have
something exclusive/distinctive to contribute to the making of a citizen's
identity. These are Ecological citizenship, Sexual citizenship, Computer and
technological citizenship, Diasporic citizenship, Urban citizenship,
Cosmopolitan citizenship and Consumer citizenship.

The assumption carried forward by proponents of these forms of

citizenship is that the world is essentially plural, that is, divisions are not
only vertical, they also have horizontal ramifications. A multilayered
conception of citizenship is required to fulfil the demands of such a plural
and fragmented society. These forms hint at the changing face of
citizenship, and also define the growing affinity towards individualism.
Multicultural thinkers, advocates of deliberation theory, and propounders
of group rights or the politics of difference have tried to offer solutions,
which have been addressed in subsequent chapters.

Under the impact of factors operating in an era of post-nationalism,

political division is giving way to economic cohesiveness. A change in
attitude marks a cosmopolitan era in which a sense of statelessness is
setting in. Globetrotters are on the rise; a large number of people throng
the markets of Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai with their monthly
shopping lists. Against this backdrop, it is appropriate to return to
Habermas and his prophetic pronouncement that the political identity of
the nation-state would give way to cultural identity (multicultural?).
Nevertheless, the importance of forces such as religious fundamentalism,
cultural exclusivity, and the preservation of tradition and heritage has not
reduced. As we know, transcending international borders is no longer a
limiting factor since physical barriers are crumbling under the pressure of
globalization, world trade and market economy. Accordingly, the narrow
definition of citizenship and the associated national identity has acquired a
newer and broader connotation indicating a march towards global identity
and world citizenship.

Summary

National identity is not complete in itself. To understand it in its totality,

one needs to delve into the origins of a Nation. Nationhood has to do with
how people conceive themselves. There are two ways of understanding this:
cultural—when people are not held together due to physical necessity but
by the web of customs, traditions, ethnicity or shared history. The second is
political, where national identity is linked to active citizenry and political
participation. Also important is constitutional patriotism, which emerges
from the role of law, constitutions, etc., as elaborated by Habermas.

All nations suffer from high political ambitions. It is this will which paves
the way towards nation-building, and this will making/seeking exercise is
politically termed nationalism. Thus, nationalism is the journey of an
individual's will, which ultimately (though not always) seeks to build a
place of its choice, called the nation. This in turn explains national identity.

This exercise, when supplemented with high political aspirations,

culminates in the formation of nation-states. Nation-states are modern
entities which are not necessarily homogeneous. They are narrower and
more modern than the concept of the nation itself.

The origin of the nation has several explanations. The

primordialists/perennialists view nationalism as an organic ideology where
nation is the natural entity. The descriptive or narrative interpretation
fashions nationalism with a gloriously heroic past. And, as delineated by
operationalists, the purpose of nationalism has been three-fold—to evoke a
sense of identity, to serve class interests, and to promote modernization.
Modernists term nation a recent invention and the result of a conscious
move. Lastly, ethno-symbolism fuses the roots of nationhood (ethnicity)
with modern ideas. These thinkers believe that the formation of the nation
cannot be complete without referring to one's ethnic symbols—traditions,
history, ethnicity and customs.

It is not easy to see how the more extreme forms of nationalism can long
survive when men have seen the Earth in its true perspective as a single
small globe against the stars. With the advent of globalization, the post
modernists foresee the withering away of the nation-state and emergence of
a multicultural/multinational fabric of societies. Also the era of post-
nationalism informed by high-end economic relations, seems to attempt at
a reinterpretation of one's national identity.