Nationalism has been the most potent force in world politics for over 200 years. Its most significant achievement has been establishing the nation as the fundamental unit for political rule and with the nationalists stating the only viable form of government having legitimacy. In the last half-century, Nationalism has also re-emerged as a reaction against the homogenizing impact of globalization and as a means of resisting immigration and multiculturalism. Right-wing parties such as France’s National Rally and Alternative for Germany (A.F.D) are examples of this sentiment in two of Europe’s biggest and most dynamic economic machines.
The nation is a complex phenomenon shaped by a collection of cultural, political & psychological factors. Culturally, a nation is a group of people bound by a common culture, language, history, and traditions. Nonetheless, all countries exhibit some degree of heterogeneity. Politically, a nation-state includes people who regard themselves as a ‘natural’ political community and gel together to establish or maintain Sovereignty. Psychologically, the nation is a group of people who share loyalty and affection in patriotism.
Read more: Covid ‘vaccine nationalism’ highlights failure of Multi-lateral system
Nationalism as a concept
Nationalism is a concept closely tied to the conception of Sovereignty. Sovereignty in ancient Egypt resided with the Pharaohs. The Sovereignty that they held sprang from the idea of giving them a divine status that was not ascribed to the commoners.
Moving to the 19th century, the idea of Nationalism in Europe there was premised on the following postulation:
Legitimacy is not handed down from God; it surges up from the people. Philosophers such as Rousseau drew on a well-established sense of nationhood. He stated that “The principle of all Sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. Nobody nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.” Thus establishing the grounds for the concept of popular Sovereignty.
Hence, as seen from the first premise of Sovereignty, the idea of Nationalism has strong groundings in the principles of ‘popular Sovereignty. However, Pakistan’sobjectives resolution stated that Sovereignty over the entire world belongs to the Divine and the authority He has delegated to the state of Pakistan. Objectives resolution ultimately became part of the Pakistani Constitution when the Eighth Amendment in the Constitution of 1973 was passed in 1985.
Read more: 74 years on from Independence, Pakistan still in multiple quagmires
Some minority members resented this insertion and stated that new words should be inserted, such as “National sovereignty belongs to the people of Pakistan.”
This contention between popular against divine Sovereignty continues to play out in modern South Asia as Afghanistan verges on the legitimate form of government that would meet international as well as domestic recognition. First, let us look at the premise of Divine Sovereignty. Does the assumption that a Divine Being holds Sovereignty over the entire universe fundamentally guarantee that those exercising this Sovereignty also have the right to extend their Sovereignty to every conceivable domain created by the Divine? Secondly, what is the consensus on who is eligible to exercise that Sovereignty? Is it the clerical class that are the custodians of the Divine Law as in some parts of the region, or is the Monarch as in other parts of the region, or is it the democratically elected leaders as in Turkey and Pakistan?
Sovereignty explained in political sciences
Sovereignty, besides being a contested concept in Political Science, is disputed in International Law as well. Political Independence and territorial integrity are sacrosanct principles of International Law guaranteed under the United Nations Charter Article 2 (4).
Sovereign states are the primary subjects of binding International law norms. Interestingly, one of the main challenges to the legitimacy of international law is that it allegedly fails to respect the Sovereignty of states, intruding upon domains in which they should be free to make their own decisions. By analogy to individual autonomy, state sovereignty is often understood in international law as a competence, immunity, or power, particularly as the ability to make autonomous choices.
Read more: Op-ed: Understanding the eighteenth amendment
The confluence of Nationalism, Patriotism, and Sovereignty has a long history. Eminent Pakistani journalist NasimZehra in a recent Op-Ed in The News has stated that AshrafGhani is looking to retreat in the ‘last refuge of the scoundrel,’ i.e. patriotism, to protect the crumbling Afghan regime. The Afghan government has resultantly started to shift the blame on Pakistan.
There beget some more questions. Are Nationalism and patriotism interwoven? Can there be a nationalist who is not patriotic? Is a patriot who does not subscribe to that nation’s concept of Sovereignty as expressed by its Constitution still a patriot? Indian vigilante mobs of late have found the answer to at least the first premise.
‘Anti-national’ is a term that has found resonance since the B.J.P troupe have come to power. Their narrow definition of patriotism has excluded minorities, left-wing parties, and regional peace advocates to create an ‘Usvs Them’ identity politics narrative. Indian parliament does not hold ‘absolute Sovereignty’ as reaffirmed by the Indian Supreme Court judgments in Minerva Mills and Waman Rao.
Ideologies fueling violence and hatred
However, the vigilante mobs operating under the banner of a particular party that exercises majority in the Indian parliament appear to exercise the immunity granted to a sovereign. India’s hostile Hindutva ideology has resulted in targeting minorities, villainization of social activists, and identity politics that is looking to cut the society’s fabric. There are several repercussions for this economically, militarily, and socially. The Hindutva ideology has sowed the seeds of dissent and violence in Indian society.
Read more: Violence in India has progressively increased during pandemic, says report
Whereas Modi is just an individual, the Hindutva ideology propagated by R.S.S has started to take permanent roots in Indian society. This is likely to have devastating consequences for the Indian polity as this ideology will undercut the essential fabric of Indian society. Economically, India’s degenerating polarized society is expected to hamper institutions that would result in economic growth.
Socially, the democratic norms (including freedom of expression, freedom to choose their way of life, and other fundamental Human Rights) decline. National institutions are likely to see deterioration, and more and more people are likely to be affected by this destructive ideology as the majority gravitates towards it. The dogmatic majority believes that this ideology would protect its interests.
Therefore, it is imperative to rethink the concepts of Nationalism, patriotism, and Sovereignty in the South Asian region in modern times. There is no better time to do so than mid-August when two Independent nation-states were born out of the rubble of the British Empire in 1947. Two nation-states still grappling with basic conceptions of Sovereignty while their populace hardens the narratives around Nationalism. Very soon, a third one on the North-Western flank of the region will be added to this quest.
Read more: Communal violence & Hindu supremacy: Modi’s India unsafe for minorities
Omer Aamir is a Researcher for Security & Legal Affairs at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies. He has done B.A, LL.B (Hons) from Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), Pakistan. He can be reached at oaamir94@gmail.com. The views expressed in the article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Global Village Space.