On ethnic Nationalism, polarization and exclusive domains

Yenning *

Any keen or casual observer can see that an undercurrent of nationalism or sub-nationalism fuelled the recent aggression of the Chin-Kuki militants and their supporters. But their nationalism or sub-nationalism was tainted from the beginning as it focused on creating an ethno-exclusive domain.

Moreover, the particular brand of nationalism which fuelled the aggression tilted heavily towards extremism and carnage, if not terrorism, as manifested in the wanton targeting of civilian population, rather than combatants or security forces. The allegation that drug money financed the whole campaign of the Chin-Kuki militants is another area which needs in-depth analysis.

One political analyst defined nationalism as a set of political beliefs which holds that a Nation – a body of individuals with characteristics that purportedly distinguish them from other individuals – should have its own State. Nationalism need not be malevolent in nature, but may simply remain benevolent in which a Nation is merely taking pride in its accomplishments, charac-teristics, etc.

However, benevolent nationalism has frequently been turned into malevolent (or hyper) nationalism by Governments or other forms of political organisations in order to mobilize the masses in support of National security policies or in pursuit of certain aspirations – particularly when they will require sacrifice on the part of those same masses.

Hyper-nationalism can best be described as the belief that other Nations or Nation-States are both inferior and threatening, and must therefore be dealt with harshly as espoused by the Nazi Germany under the leadership of Adolf Hitler in the 20th century. Malevolent nationalism or hyper-nationalism always assume it essential to project a ubiquitous enemy, whether real or imagined. In the case of Nazi Germany, it was the Jews who were painted as the irreconcilable enemies of the German people.

Nationalism as cause of ethnic conflicts

Nationalism can be broadly classified into civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism. Though these two types of nationalism have their own merits and demerits, it is the latter which is potentially dangerous, more particularly so in multi ethnic societies. Centrality of Nation and State is common in both the genres of nationalism but conceptually precedence and areas of stress are quite different to the point of contradiction.

According to the general understanding of civic nationalism, nationhood is defined by having common citizenship. A civic Nation consists of all those who subscribe to its political creed, regardless of ethnicity or race, colour, religion, gender or language. Again, a civic Nation is in principle a community of equal, rights- bearing citizens united in patriotic attachment to a shared set of political practices and values.

A civic Nation is “democratic” in the sense that it vests sovereignty in all of the people (all citizens); a civic Nation-State claims self-governing rights and rights for its citizens vis-a-vis other Nation-States.

Civic nationalism is exemplified by creation of British Nation-State in the late 18th century out of the English, the Welsh, the Scots, and the Irish united by a civic rather than an ethnic definition of belonging & by attachment to civic institutions like the Parliament and the rule of law. Civic Nationalism is also exemplified by the French and American Revolutions which created the French and American republics and put forth civic nationalism as a world embracing project.

On the contrary, in ethnic nationalism, nationhood is defined by language, religion, customs and traditions. According to ethnic nationalists, it is not the State that creates the Nation but the Nation that creates the State. According to them the glue that holds people together is not shared political rights but pre-existing ethnic characteristics. European ethnic nationalism is exemplified by Germany’s reaction to Napoleon’s invasion in 1806 and Germany’s “Romantic” reaction against the French ideal of the Nation-State.

The German ideal of ethnic nationalism appealed to the peoples of 19th century Europe who were under imperial domination – Poles and Baltic peoples under the Russian Empire, Serbs under the Turkish rule (Ottoman Empire), and Croats under the Habsburgs (Austro-Hungarian Empire).

Some of the contrasting points between these two fundamental concepts of nationalism are, civic nationalists put their faith in law, choice, rational attachment and unity by consent whereas ethnic nationalists are more fascinated by common roots or ancestry, inheritance, emotional attachment and unity by ascription.

Again, when civic nationalists view citizenship, Supreme Court and National flag as the primary symbols of their Nationhood, ethnic nationalists have more regard for their birth of place, town hall, tribe council, etc. By nature, civic nationalism is inclusive as opposed to ethnic nationalism which always tends to be exclusive.

The very exclusive characteristic of ethnic nationalism is the fundamental cause of ethnic conflicts in multi ethnic societies. Assertion for dominance and fear for assimilation into pluralistic society, uncanny attachment to ethnic identity are some other factors which often lead to ethnic-based conflicts. The tragedy is, ethnic nationalism predominates civic nationalism in most underdeveloped states. This is exactly what is happening in Manipur.

The gathering storm of Ethnic Nationalism in Manipur

Ethnic Nationalism has virtually reached its epitome in Manipur with one ethnic group declaring a full scale war in pursuit of their demand for a separate State, and another group clinging to a claim of irredentism. Leaving aside the questions of rationale and feasibility of these demands, it is clear that there are some deep entrenched grievances, and distrust and fear of each other.

The Manipur situation is all the more intriguing if one takes into account the steadfast stance of the third party which holds the territorial integrity of Manipur as the most sacrosanct, something untouchable under any circumstances.

In fact, it is the third party against which the first two parties target all their political salvos in the name of salvaging themselves from exploitation by the majority. This does not mean the first two are under any form of consonance or any position of reconciliation. The third party happens to be common adversary because it wants to maintain status quo of the present day Manipur vis-à-vis territory as against the demands of the first two to disintegrate the State.

The demands for Naga integration and separate State as well as the seemingly non-negotiable stance to preserve territorial integrity of Manipur are all fuelled and fired by strong undercurrents of Nationalism. It is clearly the case of ethnic nationalism which is driving the political agenda of separate State and integration of Naga inhabited areas. As for the third party, it is not yet well defined which stream of Nationalism is inspiring them to maintain status quo of the State.

Evidently, it cannot be a case of ethnic nationalism as the pluralistic character of Manipur must be preserved and promoted. If it is civic nationalism, then, there must be no place for chauvinism, dominance or imposition of majority rule. The third party needs to raise above the position of superiority it once enjoyed in the historical past.

Chauvinism should make way for equal partnership and power sharing. Most important of all, the third party needs to develop and promote such values, systems and symbols which can identify and be identified with by all the ethnic groups, rather than imposing its own will or tradition.

Yet, we cannot guarantee that embracing civic nationalism in its true spirit and principle would resolve all the conflicts but it would certainly serve as a landmark stride towards promoting and demystifying the pluralistic character of Manipur. Over and above, it can lay a strong foundation for evolvement of Manipur into a progressive Nation in the future.

If these are the proposals, then the need of the hour is giving a patient hearing to the aggrieved parties. However, mere listening cannot bring about any changes. The need of the hour is to enter into dialogues. But for this homework is needed. For example, how far Manipur is ready to negotiate on capitals such as land and resources ? In other words, what should be the limit and scope of negotiation?

Yenning does not foresee a tangible atmosphere of peace in the near future, as the very basis of demands of both the Manipuri Nagas and the Kukis are on land and resources. Majority Mani-puris can no longer be lost in the purple haze of history or the historical sanctity of its territorial integrity. Negotiations can unmake history and create new ones.

The issue is how far Manipur is ready to give, and in return what does it get. Still, we do not believe sacrificing the territorial integrity of Manipur to fulfil the quests driven by ethnic nationalism would serve any political or social purpose in the long run. Rather it would be suicidal for all the indigenous peoples.