UNIT 14 NATIONALITY AND SELF-DETERMINATION

Structure
14.1
142 Meanings
, 14.2.1 Nationality Nation
14.2.2 The Example
14.2.3 The British Colonies
14.2.4 The Dutch, French, Portuguese and French Colonies
14.2.5 The Origins of the Nationality Question
14.3 The Historical Roots
14.3.1 People, Nationality and Nation
The Content of Nationality
14.4 The Debate on Self-Determination
14.4.1 The Content of Self-Determination
14.4.2 The Case
14.4.3 Self-Determination versus Secession
14.4.4 Globalisation and the National Question
14.5 Summary
14.6 Exercises

14.1 INTRODUCTION
In the early second half of the nineteenth century, John Stuart Mill argued that Where the
sentiment of nationality exists in any force there is a primafacie case for uniting all the
members of the nationality under the same governmentand a government to themselves apart'
(Representative Government, 1861, pp. thus setting out the agenda for the right to
self-determination of nations. On the other hand, he argued, 'Free institutions are next to
impossible in a country made up of different nationalities'. Mill's case was that such nationalities
should be separated and constituted into separate states in order that they enjoy the full benefit
of representative self-government.

For at least a hundred years since the continental revolution of 1848 the European political scene
was dominated by the nationality question that caused two World Wars. Even in the era of
globalisation today the nationality question is alive.

14.2 MEANINGS
14.2.1 Nationality ,and Nation
The term 'nationality', however, is extremely to define. Doubtless, it comes from the .
word 'nation'. As an abstract noun it means 'nationhood' - the fact of being a nation, for
 example, the nationality of the Poles or the Slavs, or being members of a nation, for example,
my Indian nationality or Tony British nationality (as declared in a Passport). As a
concrete noun it means a small nation or a potential nation, for example; the Scottish nationality
in the United Kingdom. J.S. Mill has spoken Welshman or the Scottish Highlander
choosing to remain members of 'the British nation.' During the period between the two World
Wars the question was asked about the recognition of the Polish nationality. For the Scots
today the question is if they are a nation or a part of the greater identity of the English. Both,
however, evoke a similar political To what extent were the Poles entitled to
political freedom? Or, for that matter, to what extent are the Scots or the northern Irish people
of the United Kingdom entitled to it today?

Political freedom, in turn, is conceived in two ways complete independence with sovereign
status and (2) self-determination, that is, large to control the internal affairs
of the people within the framework of a national state or an empire. It should be noted, however,
that when the second arrangement exists, the top Government gives the arrangement the name
of 'self-government' but the concerned people call it 'self-determination.' The difference between
the two concepts lies in the fact that, self-government is supposed to be a gift of the Central1
Imperial Government while is supposed to have been by the
local people through Further, in self-government, the Central or the Imperial
Government retains the ultimate, if nominal, control over the local government while in self-
determination the local people retain the option to claim a sovereign, independent status.

. In both the cases, however, there is a tendency of the subordinate government to move towards
complete independence.

14.2.2 The lrish Example

The example of Ireland is a case in point. This Catholic-majority region was always unhappy
with its being a part of the United Kingdom dominated by the Protestant-dominated England.
By the end of the nineteenth century migration turned Northern Ireland into a
majority region. In 1922 the United Kingdom granted Southern Ireland self-government and the
name of the Free State. Eamon de Republican Party denounced the arrangement,
won the Irish election in 1936, renamed the country as the Eire, remained neutral during World
War in which United Kingdom was a party and, in 1948, proclaimed the Republic
of Ireland.

14.2.3 The British Colonies

United Kingdom granted her white colonies substantial self-government and, in 1929, called
them 'Dominions'. Britain also came to loosely call her empire the British Commonwealth. In
1917 the Montague-Chelmsford Reforms proposed a certain of devolution of power to
the British lndian provinces in the form of diarchy that was rejected by the major political parties
in British India. In 1929 they demanded 'dominion status' which the Simon refused
to grant. It proposed devolution of more power to Provinces and some power to the Centre
to be administered by the Indian subjects. Hence, the Civil Disobedience Movement of the'
1930s. Indian Independence Act, 1947 granted British India, its partition, the'status
of 'Independent Dominion.' The Constituent of lndia proclaimed lndia as a sovereign
democratic republic but chose to remain a member of the Commonwealth-of Nations, the
renamed British Commonwealth.

14.2.4 The Dutch, French, Portuguese and Belgian Colonies

The Dutch were the first colonialists of Europe. In course of her competition with the other
European colonial powers, however, they lost much of their overseas territories and later became
virtually confined to Indonesia. After World War she lost control over those islands too, though
after a powerful freedom movement there.

Under the Fourth Republican Constitution France called her empire the French Union with very
little autonomy to her 'associate states.' In 1954 Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos withdrew from
the Union resulting in the Indo-China wars. Algeria's demand for freedom led to violent repression
that ended only in the 1960s. Meanwhile, in 1958, the French Union was renamed as the French
Community. But the experiment failed and most of the French possessions became free by the
1960s.

Confronted with a freedom movement in the Congo in 1958-59, Belgium promised her election
and extensive freedom. But serious riots forced her to grant Belgian Congo total freedom in
January 1960. Portugal, on the other hand, itself under a dictatorship. She never tried to ,
grant her colonies self-government and regarded them as her provinces. In 1961, Goa was
liberated by India by force. After the end of dictatorship in Portugal her other colonies were
granted freedom.

Thus, the concept of nationality does not fit well with that of 'self-government.' It fits well with
of 'self-determination.'

14.2.5 Origins of the Nationality Question

The origins of the 'nationality' question lie in the basic arbitrariness State system. Political
power is, by nature, territorial. The borders of a State lie at the frontiers of the power of a
Government. Such power is always relative to historical circumstances and the power of the
neighbouring State. It almost never conforms to the ethno-cultural boundaries of a people. All
modern States usually contain substantial minority groups many of whom are concentrated
geographically. Whenever one or more minority groups grow unhappy with the ruling order they
are likely to demand the right to self-determination, that is, right to be themselves' to be able
to govern their own destiny. Needless to say that this is a political demand rooted in socio-
economic as well as geographical factors. Thus, if a region is far or detached from a heartland
there is likely to be a demand for separation. If there is a great economic disparity between the
regions or the lack of cultural among the regions such demands may grow
powerful. Among the disgruntled people initially this appears in the form of a fellow feeling that
later develops into a solidarity. sense of solidarity is the basis of nationality. Such a feeling
is essentially democratic as it seeks an alternative basis of equality with the hitherto dominant
power.

14.3 THE HISTORICAL ROOTS

14.3.1 People, Nationality and Nation
At this stage a clarification is necessary between the terms 'nation,' 'nationality' and 'people.'
Though these terms have been used interchangeably in popular discourse they grew in different
historical contexts. In the place, the term 'people' is specific than the term 'population.'
'Population' has a generic meaning - an assortment of individuals in a territory. When, in 1789,
the Third Estate of the French legislature declared that 'sovereignty in France belongs to the
French nation' and called itself the National Assembly, it used the term 'nation' in that sense.
It meant the population of France. 'People' has a more identifiable character - a certain
objective commonness, not clearly defined except perhaps in terms of territorial loyalty. It was
in this sense that the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Charter of the United Nations
Organisation took name of 'the people'.

Historically, 'nations' in the modern sense emerged the demise of the divine rights theory
of monarchy that saw States as properties of the dynasties backed by the church. The Protestant
revolution destroyed the supremacy Pope in the political affairs of Europe and started the
decay of what Delisle Burns called 'the medieval unity.' The guiding feeling behind such change
of attitude was anti-imperialist as well as anti-feudal. But it a vacuum in the political
configuration of Europe. Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, for instance, created 300 German
states most of which were Protestant and autonomous of the Pope's control. But they were
hardly more than feudal estates.

And yet the whole of the German population were not united. France in the west and Poland
on east contained substantial German population. In 1772, the year of the first Polish
partition, a romantic Polish-German intellectual, tried to discover German
(peopleness) in language. A century later Germany was united as a result of the
Prussian War of 1870. That it eventually led to the worst kind of national chauvinism is a
different matter.

Since the whole German population was never united, there remained groups of the German
population scattered in the countries giving Hitler the pretext for launching invasion
on the German neighbourhood. The biggest German-speaking unit, Austria, remained out of the
unified Germany because of, among other reasons, religious difference and, in fact, later grew
into an empire. It was Napoleon Bonaparte who had put an end to 'the Holy Roman Empire'
and even created a small independent state of Poland. But Francis the last 'Holy Roman
Emperor' turned himself into the emperor of the Catholic Austria in 1804 and, in 1815, partitioned
Poland for the fourth time. It was within the fold of the Austrian empire that the issue of self-
determination of nations acquired poignancy.

During the continental revolutions of 1848 small nationalities within the Austrian empire first
raised their heads. In 1867 Austria was forced to recognise Hungary's political claims by
reorganising itself as the Austro-Hungarian Empire. However, the Slav nationalities of Eastern
Europe remained restless. During World War Austria was among the Central Powers, with
Germany. When the United States joined the War on the Allied side, its President, Woodrow
Wilson laid out a Fourteen-Point Programme that among other things, promised the right to self-
determination to the nationalities of central Europe, particularly of Austria.

14.3.2 The Content of Nationality

We have noted that, in the a romantic view of 'peopleness' emerged in Germany. It
sought to unite the German people on the basis of language. This trend gathered momentum in
nineteenth century and was acknowledged by J.S. Mill who stressed 'sympathy' as the bond
of nationality. This feeling of nationality, according to Mill. have been generated by 'various
causes' among which he listed (1) the effect of identity of race and descent, (2) common
language, (3) community of religion, (4) geographical limits and (6) 'strongest of all' identity of
political antecedents by which he meant the possession of a national history, and consequent
communityof recollections, collective and humiliation, pleasureand regret, connected with
the same incidents in the past,

By a broad sweep, however, Mill qualified all these factors. 'None of these circumstances,
however, are either indispensable or necessarily sufficient by themselves.' Subsequent political
thinkers and historians in vain have tried to discover a definite basis of nationality or nationhood.
Purely race-based States are impossible to find even in Africa, though Hitler's Germany tried
to build it. Such racial States never existed in the history of civilisation. Though Joseph
famous definition of a nation stressed language and common historical experience, along with
territory, as the main factors of nationhood to the exclusion of religion and though, according to
Hobsbawm, modem nationalism emerged on the ruins of religion, there still are certain States
in the world that are identified with religion: Ireland in Europe and Israel in West Asia besides
a large number of Islamic Republics in Asia including Pakistan. Yet Muslim States in West Asia
failed to unite on basis of religion and Pakistan was split in 1971 on the basis of language.
As far as common history is concerned, E. Renan, a French political thinker, argued that getting
the history wrong is a part process of building a national sentiment too. One interesting
trend among the Third World countries of today is the effort to rewrite history with a view to
consolidating their 'national' unity.

Renan, therefore, concluded that 'a nation is a spiritual whole' surviving on the basis of
a common sentiment. Consequently, attention was shifted from the past to the present and the
future. The concept of 'nation building' popularised by Jawaharlal Nehru comes in handy from
this perspective. It insists on national unity with a view to progress and development. Karl
an American political scientist, argued that the existence of a nation is a 'daily I
meaning that a common intention to live together is the essence of nationality. I

And there lies the rub. Objective circumstances in which a was born
change. Social and economic disparities may grow between sections of the people concerned,
particularly among its elite. Political ambitions among the elite may grow
incongruous with the outlook and interests of the so-called 'national' elite. Differences of regions
and sections are invented. Where such differences already exist in a latent form, they are
magnified. The most cited ground is 'inequality' real or imagined.
While the governing 'national' elite would depict them as imagined, the dissident elite would
always depict them as real. If the governing elite use coercion or state power, there are
rebellions. If such rebellions succeed, new 'national states' come into being, destroying the old
order. Thus 'national self-determination' has become an extremely contentious issue in politics.

14.4 THE DEBATE ON SELF-DETERMINATION

14.4.1 The Content of Self-Determination I

Wilson's promise of the right to self-determination to nationalitieshad three kinds of critics. One
was the straightforward conservative who did not like the breakdown of the territorial system

170
of the old empires. The second group comprised the radical who thought that Wilson's programme
was too limited in scope and confined to only the Austro-Hungarian Empire and did not touch
the traditional empires like the British and the French. It took a blind eye to the entire colonial
world. The third group of critics was the pragmatic one. They thought that the modern states
are too much heterogeneous to allow a neat streamliningof borders along the ethnic lines.

The first two critiques are, of course, partisan. It is the third critique that requires academic
consideration. Lord the British Foreign Secretary and former Governor-General of India
who had partitioned Bengal in 1905, is credited with the comment that right to national self-
determination is a two-edged sword, meaning that it unites as well as divides people.
partition is made of a state territory, dissatisfied will exist and
contiguous states will continuously indulge in irredentism threatening peace.

There is another consideration. Although language is the favourite criterion of nationhood in the
West today, other factors, particularly religion, still sway political opinions. The Irish problem, for
instance, is predominantly religious. The ethnic crisis in Yugoslavia in the 1990s was based on
religious differences too. The Chechen demand for independence Russia is also based on
religion. The picture becomes more complicated when religious groups are found divided on

14.4.2 The Indian Case

It is a well-known fact that the whole of India was never politically united before the British
advent. Even the British were not able to administer the whole of India uniformly, About
thirds of the sub-continent under direct rule and one-third under 562 native states of
different sizes and strengths.

Even British was not administered uniformly. British power started spreading from the
coasts of Bengal, Bombay and Madras. The territory was first organised under 'Presidencies'
- blocs of territories containing peoples of different languages and religions, besides a number
of primitive tribes. New territories, including Burma and Aden, were added to these possessions,
some of them being constituted as separate provinces. 1905 Lord Curzon divided the Bengal
presidency on the basis of religion giving birth to a powerful anti-partition agitation. It was at
this time that the leaders of the Indian national movement adopted language as the basis of
provincialisation of India against religion favoured by the Government. The British left India, in
1947, after partitioning the country on the basis of religion. Pakistan was created as a
majority state. But Pakistan was split in 1971 on the basis of language. Though, in the
there was a separatist demand in the then Madras (now Tamilnadu) state the movement was
contained. Language never posed a threat to the integrity of the Indian state but it has caused
several 'state reorganisations'.

But language has not been the only factor in state reorganisation in India. Assertion of
ethnic identities has caused creation of a number of states and central India. The
creation of Uttaranchal as a state was based purely on regional disparity.

Religious and tribal groups in the border regions of the north-east and the north-west have
occasionally demanded secession from India. Indian opinion in general never approved of the
'two nations' theory of V.D. Savarkar and M.A. Jinnah on the basis of religion. It considers the
1947 partition of British India as an imperialist conspiracy.

The Indian nation is territorial though certain scholars have called it a multi-cultural,
nationality state.

14.4.3 Self-Determination and Secession

Right to self-determinationdoes not mean only national self-determination. It has a much broader
connotation to cover all kinds of subject people. The American Revolution of 1776, for instance,
was an assertion of the right to self-determination; it did not speak of 'national self determination.'
The North American rebels did not yet consider themselves a nation. But 'self-determination',
generically, does mean a certain desire for secession from a larger entity. Even when
psychologically individuals speak of self-determinationthey mean to assert their own entity as
different those of others. When a collectivityof people asserts their right to self-determination
they do the same thing. The secessionists may or may not constitute one single nation. When
the Austrian empire collapsed, Several nationalities, some of them ill defined, emerged. The
process was repeated the disintegration of the socialist states of the USSR and Yugoslavia.
When, however, a distinct sense of nationality gets consolidated among a section of the people
populating a State or an Empire, as Mill stressed, there is a distinct case for
determination.

In any case, right to self-determination a challenge to the larger body to which it belongs.
The nationalist content of this demand gives it an added strength. Consequently, it is opposed
by the 'advocates of order'. By the same token nationalism is disfavoured by the same people.
In the days of globalisation the issue has acquired pungency. The advocates of globalisation
consider national to be essentially retrograde. The advocates of national
sovereignty consider the global order as essentially unequal. They consider right
as the major shield against a global exploitation.

A leaf from history will be of great educative value. Before the Bolshevik Revolution, V.I. Lenin
promised the right to self-determination to the oppressed nationalities of the Tsarist empire of
Russia. After the revolution, however, Lenin opposed it. He reformulated the right to self-
determination as a right to equal status of every nationality within the larger political unit, the
Soviet federation. However,the Soviet State policy could never fully the minority nationalities
and the federation broke down in 1990.

14.4.4 Globalisation and the National Question

According to the Marxists the national question arose with the rise of capitalism in Europe.
himself thought that capitalism would eventually obliterate the national boundaries by its sheer
economic strength. However, Lenin found in nationalism the power to fight imperialism and
welcomed the collaboration of the Marxists with 'the national bourgeoisie' in the colonies. There
was, as a result, an extent of collaboration between the nationalist movements in Asia and
Africa and the international communist movement.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, the USA has an unprecedented hegemony
in world affairs and has propounded a new international economic order that envisaged the end
of economic nationalism. Economic nationalism is a strategy adopted by all developing countries
 th
since the 19 century. On the question of global environment the USA adamantly follows
its own economic agenda rejects the of any environmental norm on its freedom.
Yet it insists upon other of the world to conform to economic globalisation. The
developing countries like India feel by the all-encompassing demands of globalisation
on their economies including agriculture, mainstay of their economy. The conflict of interest
has given birth to strong reactions among the developing countries that regard the
programme of globalisation as a design of the economic superpowers.

fear of the developing countries about bondage had given

birth to the programme of self-reliance after attaining independence, whose greatest champion
was Jawaharlal Nehru. In a way the of swadeshi reflects the same
sentiment.

14.5 SUMMARY
Nationality and are inter-connected notions. In the nineteenth century they
were focused in Europe. After World War I the focus shifted to Asia and Africa. Because of
their historically anti-imperialist character, the Marxists supported them. The fall of the Soviet
Union has led to the programme of globalisation that undermines the nationalist economies and
sentiments.

14.6 EXERCISES

I) Discuss the of the factors behind its growth.

2) Analyse concept of self-determination in its historical setting.

3) Evaluate the debate on the question of national self-determination.

4) What do the of globalisation have to do with national