Nationalism

Written and reviewed by Subhra Gupta, Humanities faculty at UniDrill (M.A. Sociology, University of Delhi · 7 years teaching Humanities). Based on NCERT Political Science Class XI (Political Theory), Chapter 7.

You cannot see a nation, so why do people die for one?

Watch the Republic Day parade in Delhi and you feel something: pride, a sense of power, a sense of many Indias marching together. Yet no one has ever seen "India" in the way they see a mountain or a river. You will never meet most of your fellow citizens, but you feel you belong with them.

That feeling is nationalism, and it has been one of the strongest forces in modern history. It has freed people from foreign rule and it has started wars. It has united people and it has torn them apart. This chapter asks three questions. What is a nation? When does a group of people deserve its own state? And how can a country hold together when its people differ in religion, language and culture?

What nationalism has done: building states and breaking empires

Nationalism is hard to define in a single line, but its effects are easy to see. In the last two centuries it has worked in three directions.

One more case shows that nationalism does not always split countries. Arab nationalism hopes to unite Arab countries into a pan-Arab union, while Basque or Kurdish nationalism seeks to carve a new state out of an existing one. The same language of nationhood is used for opposite goals, so examiners love to flip the direction in a question.

India's own freedom struggle belongs to the second row. It was a nationalist struggle, inspired by the wish to set up a nation-state free of foreign control. The language of nationalism is also used by some groups within India today.

Beyond the textbook. For the exam: the Quebecois are a separatist movement in Canada. In reality: the question of Quebec leaving Canada has been put to the voters of Quebec in referendums, in 1980 and again in 1995, and the proposal was not approved either time. Why it matters: it shows that a separatist demand can be raised through votes and law, not only through conflict.

What is a nation?

Not a family, not a tribe. A family is a group of people who know each other face to face. Tribes, clans and other kinship groups are bound by marriage and descent. A nation is different on both counts: you will never meet most of your fellow nationals, and you do not share descent with them. Yet nations exist, and their members value them.

No single common feature. It is easy to say a nation is a group sharing language, religion, race or ethnicity. But no set of features is found in all nations. Canada has English and French speakers. India has a very large number of languages and many religions. Nations do not share a common race or descent.

An imagined community. Following Benedict Anderson, a nation is largely an "imagined" community, held together by the beliefs, hopes and imaginations of its members. "Imagined" does not mean false. It means the nation exists because people believe it does, and acting on that belief makes it real.

Beyond the textbook. For the exam: a nation is an imagined community. In reality: Anderson published this idea in his book Imagined Communities in 1983. He argued that people who never meet can still picture themselves as part of one group, and that shared newspapers, books and a common language helped this feeling to spread. Why it matters: it explains why a nation can be built or weakened by what its people believe.

The four pillars of nationhood

If no single feature defines every nation, what do nations share? The chapter names four assumptions people make when they call themselves a nation.

Why territory causes conflict. More than one group can claim the same land. That is why the wish for a homeland has been one of the main causes of conflict in the world.

Why political ideals matter most for a diverse country. A shared vision of the future is what lets people of different religions and languages call themselves one nation. They agree on the kind of state they want and on the obligations they owe each other as citizens.

Pause and predict: a group says "we are a nation because we all share one race". Which of the four pillars is it using, and does the chapter accept this?

Check your answer: none of the four. Race and descent are not among the pillars, and the chapter says nations do not share a common race. A claim based on race is exactly what the examiner expects you to reject.

A nation of culture or a nation of political ideals?

Many people picture a nation as one culture: one religion, one language, one way of life. The chapter argues that, for a democracy, the nation is better imagined in political terms, as loyalty to shared values written in the Constitution. It gives two reasons.

Reason one: religions are internally diverse. Every major religion has sects that read the same texts differently. If the state built the nation around one version, it would tend to become an authoritarian and oppressive society that silences dissent.

Reason two: societies are culturally diverse. If belonging depends on speaking one language or following one religion, those who do not fit would be excluded, would lose religious liberty, or would be disadvantaged in public life.

So a democratic state should stress loyalty to constitutional values, not adherence to a particular religion, race or language. This is called a common political identity.

Two views. For the exam: a nation in a plural democracy should be defined politically, by shared constitutional ideals. Another reading: supporters of a cultural definition argue that a shared language, faith or heritage gives a nation emotional depth and keeps the people close, and that a purely political identity can feel thin. The chapter's reply is that insisting on one culture shuts out those who do not share it and risks the oppression described above.

National self-determination: the right to a state?

The claim. National self-determination is the claim of a nation to be recognised by the world as a separate political entity, free to govern itself. In practice it has usually meant a demand for a separate state.

One culture, one state. In nineteenth-century Europe, people came to believe that each cultural group should have its own state. After the First World War, this idea guided the redrawing of European borders. The Treaty of Versailles (1919) created several small new states.

What went wrong. It proved nearly impossible to give every group a state of its own. Redrawing boundaries along cultural lines led to the movement of large populations and to communal violence against minorities left on the "wrong" side. New states also contained minorities of their own.

The way out. The chapter's conclusion is that the solution does not lie in creating new states every time. It lies in making existing states more democratic and more equal, so that different cultural and ethnic groups can live together as equal citizens. Self-determination is therefore reinterpreted as the grant of democratic rights to a nationality within a state.

Case study: the Basques. The Basque region is a hilly, prosperous area in northern Spain. The Spanish government recognises it as an autonomous region within the Spanish federation. Basque nationalists, however, want it to become a separate country, pointing to a distinct language, a distinct geography and a history of self-rule since Roman times. Under Franco's dictatorship the Basque language was banned in public places and even in homes. Today only about one-third of Basques understand the Basque language. The case shows two things: a nation can feel its identity is threatened even inside a democracy, and a language is often at the heart of that feeling.

Pause and predict: a new country wins freedom and then finds one of its own regions demanding independence. Is this a contradiction?

Check your answer: it is the paradox the chapter points out. Freedom movements demand self-determination against the ruler, but the new state may then face the same demand from its own minorities. That is why the chapter argues for democratic rights inside the state.

Nationalism and pluralism: holding a diverse country together

India's answer. The Indian Constitution protects the religious, linguistic and cultural identities of minorities. It gives group rights, such as the right to preserve a language and culture, and in some cases representation in legislatures. These are part of a constitutional design that treats a nation as a political community rather than a single culture.

Multiple identities. Every person carries many identities at once: gender, caste, religion, language, region and nationality. A democracy should let all of them be expressed. The danger is an intolerant, flattening nationalism that suppresses these other identities and treats difference as disloyalty.

Tagore's warning. Rabindranath Tagore opposed Western imperialism but did not reject Western civilisation. He saw the dangers of a narrow, aggressive nationalism and held that patriotism cannot be our final spiritual shelter, because his refuge was humanity. He valued love of one's country but would not let it rank above humanity.

Two views. For the exam: a nation's strength is greater when it respects diversity, and nationalism should not become homogenising. Another reading: some thinkers argue that a strong sense of common identity is necessary to keep a state stable and to persuade citizens to share costs and sacrifice for each other. Tagore's view and the chapter's argument are that this common identity must be built on shared values and equal respect, not on suppressing difference.

Exam traps

60-second revision

Where this chapter connects

• Previous: Citizenship deals with who belongs to a nation-state and on what terms.
• Next: Secularism explains how a state can treat many religions fairly, which is the practical side of the political idea of the nation.
• Class XII link: Challenges of Nation Building shows how India dealt with partition, princely states and the reorganisation of states after 1947.