Limits
of Nationalism
R.
Cheran
This article appeared in the collection
“Uyir Kollum Varthaigal” by Cheran (Words that Kill) published
by KaalaChuvadu Press, Nagar Kovil, India, 2001. This book is
a collection of columns and essays published by the author in
Tamil magazines and dailies between 1989-1997. The subject matter
of the essays ranges from travel experiences to political commentary.
Excerpts from the Introduction to Uyir Kollum
Varthaigal
The debates and discussions in this volume address four registers.
The first register is freedom of expression, freedom to publish,
etc. When I wrote these essays (1989-1997) these freedoms were
thought to be threatened mainly, in ‘oppressive’ states. Today,
after the Sept 11, 2001 attack on New York City, ferocious attacks
are unleashed against these freedoms by ‘democratic’ states. Today,
not only Sri Lanka and India, but also countries like the US and
Canada have sacrificed fundamental rights to the alter of security
and national security.
Canada’s biggest print and media conglomerate CAN WEST Global
has ordered all editorials and headlines of its hundreds of newspapers
to adopt the single viewpoint expressed by the headquarters.
Hundreds of journalists walked out in protest of this order.
Such attacks against fundamental rights have intensified globally.
The attacks come from two directions. First, under the guise
of national security, internal security and anti-terrorism many
states are mounting incessant attacks on fundamental rights.
Secondly, attacks are waged through financial conglomerates which
have near monopoly ownership of multimedia. It is disturbing
to note that a few mega financial conglomerates have amassed the
ownership of a range of communication media like cinema, as well
as TV, print and radio. I consider the attacks on press freedom
and expression by these conglomerates as nothing other than terrorism.
The second register is related to nationalisms, and attendant
problems particularly, regarding identity and identity politics.
It is essential to have extensive debates on the problems that
result from nationalisms. In their early phases, nationalist
struggles against oppression may advance their goals and aspirations
in terms of rights, ethnic rights, self-rule, etc. In that sense,
international struggles for fundamental rights, civil rights as
well as civil rights institutions have strengthened minority nationalisms.
While national struggles are important in so far as they emphasize
collective rights, when in the name of collective rights they
destroy individual rights the justification for nationalist struggles
becomes questionable. We should have more intense research and
discussions on nationalism in Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu. I want
to stress that the single most important lesson from the Sri Lankan
experience is that in the long run, a one-dimensional nationalism
that is premised on anger, victimhood or suffering will drive
a wedge between the love for humanity and liberation struggles.
The essays regarding Lankan Tamil nationalism’s treatment of the
Muslim question point to this.
Nationalisms that deny the multiplicity of identity and ethnicity
are to be feared. When violence becomes an instrument for such
nationalisms, it results in genocide and ethnic cleansing.
The third register is related to the nature of these struggles
and their practices. Questioning the notion that the ends justify
the means, we wish to stress that only fair practices can lead
to fair ends. Self-rule, self-identity, pride in identity and
our understanding and campaigns have become mere political entities.
We have indeed learnt to invoke the national right to self-determination
from Lenin to UN declarations.
While this political aspect is just one dimension of this right,
there is another side to it. That is based on Justice (admittedly,
this translation of the Tamil term aRam is inadequate as aRam
is more than a socio-legalistic concept and, as such, means more
than a combination of Justice and Morality); that is about our
responsibility towards others. The sorrow, the loss and the terror
we continue to experience should lead to an enhanced sense of
responsibility and towards others as well as a broader mindset
that allows us to extend our hands of friendship towards them.
As Dostoievsky’s Alyosh Karamazov of Brothers Karamazov
says “We are all responsible for others. Yet, I think that
my sense of responsibility towards others should always be greater
than any other person”. I salute this value. Political upheaval
of nationalism or our self-assurance regarding our identity must
be founded on such sense of justice (aRam).
The fourth register is our approaches and commitments premised
on Justice (aRam). When we raise questions related to issues
of Justice (aRam), we are also questioning the common wisdom that
accepts the inevitability of an unbridgeable gap between ideals
and practices of the struggle. It should be possible to integrate
ideals and practices; through these essays I wish to raise a voice
of hope that such integration is possible, and to bring forth
arguments to support this integration. These discussions are
essential and urgent. It is only in times of darkness, when we
are submerged in complex problems, that people tend to reflect
and raise questions regarding Justice (aRam) and values. At
least during those times we should be committed to be receptive
towards them.
Limits of Nationalism
The rise of nationalism has intensified not only in Sri Lanka,
Bosnia and Serbia but in several other areas of the world. This
rise of nationalism, or as a sociologist calls “ethnic revival”,
is in ascendance in developed countries as well as in developing
countries. In affluent Canada, Quebecers continue to pursue a
secessionist agenda. This rise and resurgence of nationalisms
are premised on the specificity of the peoples and their distinct
nationalities.
After the breakup of Soviet Union, ethnic states became dominant
all over Eastern Europe. It is not possible to avoid dealing
with the practical reality that ethnicity and its consequent nationalisms
have become ruling political ideology.
However, we should be cautious about blindly accepting or following
solutions based on ethnicity. There are important reasons for
raising this voice of caution/opposition.
First, while new nation states are being formed based on ethnic
and nationalist upheavals, existing states move beyond national
boundaries and build socio-political structures to protect their
interests. For example, while affluent western countries move
to remove national boundaries through EEC, NAFTA and etc., in
underdeveloped countries they encourage nationalist revival and
upsurges.
Second, contrary to what many of its supporters think, nationalism
is not a panacea. Each nationalism possesses specific characteristics
that are shaped by its socio-politico-historical environment.
These characteristics in turn, shape the trajectory of nationalism.
These nationalist movements have evolved in to something that
speaks of national liberation only in rare instances. In many
instances nationalism has degenerated into forms of domination,
Nazism and fascism.
The common and notable historical lesson of nationalism is that
it excludes or even eliminates those who are constructed as “others”
or “outsiders”. Socio-politico-historical needs determine who
are constructed as the other or outsider. For Sinhala-Budhist
nationalism, Tamils, Muslims and Malayalis are all outsiders;
for current Lankan Tamil nationalism, Muslims are outsiders; for
Hindu nationalists, Muslims are outsiders; for Hitler’s Aryan-German
nationalism, all those who do not have blue eyes and are not Aryans
are outsiders.
Such construction and exclusion of outsiders point to a fundamentally
anti-democratic character of nationalisms. In another dimension,
to emphasize its existence and nobility, all nationalisms selectively
turn to a “golden age” of history, literature and culture that
are expedient to their current political needs and to establish
their identity. In many instances, such nationalisms substitute
one domination by another. For instance, Tamil nationalism, in
its struggle against the Sinhala-Budhist nationalism emphasizes
the Chola period and Chola imagery. This nationalism does not
recognize, or even justify, the imperialism of the Cholas and
their unprincipled governance; the Greater Serbia dream of the Serbs and the Zionist idea of Eretz
Israel are similar. These are but a few examples but we could
cite similar examples in all nationalisms.
The other main limitation of nationalisms is their failure to
encourage pluralisms. For instance, if one has Islam as her religion,
current Tamil nationalism would not consider her as an “insider”
and hence she will not be “admitted” as a Tamil. Similarly, during
the reign of the Portugese when King Sankili executed 500 Tamils
in Mannar who converted to Catholicism, the Tamil nationalism
resisting colonial rule was a “Tamil-Saivaite” one. There was
no space for Catholics within that nationalism. The “core” elements
of national identities are revised over time; some are included;
many are destroyed. Hence, one cannot justify nationalisms on
the ground that it has an unchanging essential constituent base.
In other words, no national identity has remained the same and
unchanging - and never will. Even though populist poets claim
that “there exists one Tamil Kind; with their very own character”,
characteristics of Tamils have changed over time.
We know that many of those who returned to Jaffna in the mid-eighties
after living outside the country for a long time were killed because
they were seen as outsiders and state spies as they were unfamiliar
with the terrain of the town and were not fluent in Tamil.
Today we have a generation growing up among the diaspora who
cannot claim Tamil as their first language. Their status and
identity as Tamils in the eyes of the current Tamil nationalism
will point to a basic limitation of that nationalism. This signals
the subtle difficulties in figuring out who is a Tamil and who
is not. It is in this context that we need to consider the limitations
and possibilities of nationalisms.
In politics as well as in culture, there appears to be a frequent
confusion between national liberation and nationalism. When people
struggled against the colonial rule of imperial powers such as
Britain and France, at the beginning they were called national
liberation struggles. A good example of this is the Indian national
struggle. These struggles were against imperial powers, and as
such were important. However, after “independence” in place of
foreign imperialism, a rule of the hegemonic upper class was established.
Though the nationalist struggle mobilized the whole population,
in the final analysis, a thin crust of dominant groups ended up
taking control of the State. This has been the history of not
only Sri Lanka and India, but also of Africa. These struggles
did not equally liberate everyone. To be more specific, colonial
rule was removed only on paper. All indigenous governments that
ruled post-independence followed the colonial powers in their
thoughts, lifestyles, educational structures, language and politics
completely, in form and shape. Be it Indian nationalism or Sri
Lankan nationalism, or any other nationalism, it did not have
a plan or discipline to bring about human liberation. As a result,
even after independence there were a variety of popular uprisings.
It is necessary to emphasize that there are fundamental differences
between the nationalism that struggled for independence from colonial
rule and post-independence nationalism that was based on ethnicity
(Sikh, Bengali, Tamil, etc). However, there are many obstacles
to define either of these as liberation struggles or national
liberation struggles.
In our understanding, liberation and national liberation struggles
are premised on the values of equality, freedom, and humanism,
etc. This equality should not be restricted to ethnic equality,
but should also include economic equality and gender equality.
Many liberation struggles may begin with these ideals but down
the road they loose these ideals. It is quite easy to clearly
identify if a struggle is a liberation struggle or has the capacity
to evolve into a liberation struggle.
It is important to look at what positions a struggle takes or
adheres to in practice viz. the following:
a)
Issues of property and propriety.
b)
Gender and feminist politics and related practices,
c)
Caste Ideology
d)
Relationship towards other nationalities
Another important aspect is the degree of internal democracy
within the liberation movement – whether the movement has internalized
the democratic norms such as freedom of dissent, etc.
No struggle gains blind support simply because it is against
oppression. Similarly, if the positions of a movement on the
above are questionable then the goal of it becoming a liberation
struggle becomes elusive. Then national liberation struggles
get reduced to mere nationalist struggles.
In such nationalist movements humanism has no space. Under these
circumstances, the noble concept of “liberation” degenerates in
to a self-serving nationalism of a specific class or group. To
think about this basic truth is an essential lesson for those
who speak and struggle for Tamil liberation and Muslim liberation.
Are they thinking?
Sari Nihar June 16 – 29, July 13, 1994
Translation: S. Nanthikesan
HOME
