Editorial Humour Tarannum -From Ground Zero Book Review Voice It Reflections Health & Fitness Prev Issue Next Issue

Ethnicity and Nation Building - Shaili Chopra Shaili Chopra is working with CNBC India as a journalist. She reports and writes business related news. She topped her Masters in Broadcast and Television at the Asian College of Journalism, Chennai. Her thesis " Peace Journalism: Reporting in conflict areas" is an account of peace building methods in reportage which can help resolve ongoing conflicts. It includes exclusive interviews with the country's top editors on the Gujarat riots. She is an avid traveller and hopes to make documentaries and short films in the near future. Despite her busy schedule in television she finds time to write, which is a passion for Shaili. Her articles and poetry are also published in The Hindu, Times of India, Indian Express, Pioneer, Femina among various other magazines and websites. Shaili reads an ecletic selection of books from political essays to RBI bulletins. She recently interviewed Amitav Ghosh. A freelance copywriter and editor, Shaili helps content providers and corporate houses.

Should every alienated group have a nation of its own? Nations today are interested in integrating their ethnicities. The two operative words here that can be moulded into several convenient definitions are "ethnic" and "nation". Ethnic means relating to a people or group that shares a culture, religion or language. "Nation" is a group that (1) shares one or more identifying characteristics, such as common history, language, religion, racial background, culture, and/or territory; and (2) is politically mobilized and/or amenable to such mobilization. Most countries in South Asia right now nations in the making and ethnicity has become a critical variable in the formation and reformation of these states.

The question is how long can we continue dissecting countries on ethnic lines? Ethnicity and nation building are intrinsically linked. In South Asia porous borders between nations, widespread historical commonalities and horizontal intermingling have altered the cultural fabric of neighbouring societies. It is not only problematic to go on tearing apart nations on any ethnic parameters, but also unwarranted. The ethnic contours of a country like India would then be unmanageable.Ethnic conflict, means violent conflict among groups who differ from one another on the basis of ethnic characteristics, has become the most collective form of collective violence in the world.

Historically, colonialism and communism suppressed cultural conflict, forcing diverse populations into geopolitical units that free peoples might never have chosen. When the United Nations was founded, there were fewer than 50 nations. Now, there are more than 200. Cultural friction was an important force in the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. Separatist movements are widespread in Spain, Quebec, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Turkey, Iraq, Sudan, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria and Algeria. This fragmentation likely will continue.

Ethnic division derives momentum from and poses three kinds of problems: political, social and economic. Domination may take the form of political authoritarianism, the suppression of civil rights and the control of economic resources. It is true that all nations follow singular patterns of nation building but these factors when addressed can significantly pave way for restoring individual freedom, which is the mainstay of humanity in the modern world.

The political relationship of the state with any ethnic group is of prime importance. A lack of political freedom is correlated with the degree of cultural conflict in many south Asian societies. By political liberty we mean representative government, universal suffrage, multiple political parties at the centre cabinet; evidence of political power shifting through elections; significant opposition voting; minority self-determination or pluralism and decentralization of political power. So lesser the participation and lesser the constitutional representation of ethnic groups, the more the possibilites of ethnic divides.

In Srilanka for example, historically the Sinhalese who are the majority (74 per cent against 18 per cent Tamils) have a minority complex. Before the British left in 1948, Sinhalese were devoid of political representation in the government and political rights while the Tamils flourished. Most of the administrative services were availed by the Tamils invoking a reaction from the Sinhala community. We know that members of a group tend to apportion more rewards to their fellows than to those not in the group. So what started out as a territorial conflict has now transformed to ethnic power politics.

The time is overdue to acknowledge the relevance of multiple and shifting social identities for the cause of democracy. In the Srilankan case itself, today the ethnic groups are not starkly different. This is indicated by the porosity of worship in the shrines and temples. The cultural diffusion is manifested in the location of Hindu deities within the Buddhist pantheon. So complete is the infused Hindu presence, that it is no longer seen to be of Tamil Hindu origin and has become an ingrained constituent of Sinhala Buddhist culture. Many Sinhalas partake of Tamil rituals in Hindu shrines, suggesting unconscious acceptance of minority beliefs and culture by the majority.

Politically, India unlike Srilanka has somewhat acknowledged its diversity. Its coalition government tries to represent most ethnic groups.Malaysia is a classic example of consociational democracy,, where representatives of most ethnic groups are a part of the government's cabinet. It has representation for Malays, Chinese and Indians. Srilanka did introduce proportional system of voting in 1978, but this leaves the results to depend on the tacit voting of minorities, again a form of favouritism.

Then, there are problems of loyalty. Instead of the unbending insistence on the singular loyalty of the citizens to the state, there is affinity towards their own ethnic group. Political representation could flatten this problem considerably. Group loyalty is widespread and leads to favouritism within the group and discrimination against those outside the group.

Different identities can only flourish within a political and state system based on layered and shared sovereignties. Sovereignty need not be the monolith from the peak of which one flaunts authority and under the weight of which "the other" is crushed.

Disenchanted social groups who have, of late, conceived of themselves as 'nations' are unlikely to give up this expression of their new consciousness. But they may yet be invited to form a part of multinational states of union forged from below though negotiation of terms of sovereignty among constituent peoples and nations.

Social Issues of schooling and problems of inflicting homogeneity in Indonesia, and Malaysia to a certain extent have pronounced already deep-rooted ethnic differences. India that way has refused to recognise schools based on caste, culture, religion, though by the virtue of geographical distribution the population of an education institution could be majority of one kind.

The success of a culturally pluralist nation, will depend on the respect given to the diverse groups. Diversity of religion, sect, and language has gone hand in hand with diversity in food, habitation, marriage, family patters and life styles. The process of discarding methods and adapting new ones has occurred simultaneously. Increasing encroachment of universalistic norms is counter-balancing the influence of ethnic preference among the people.

Canada is the most appropriate example of multicultural society where different community groups can retain their religion freely. However, formation of a basic social structure, despite a sense of pluralism in Canada and most developed countries diminishes the rate of aggravation among these ethnic groups.

Again in case of Srilanka, access to education was discriminatory. Tamils were the more educated lot during the British era and secured higher positions in universities and as a result attained most employment opportunities. Later, once the Sinhala government took over, discrimination was observed in the form of high percentage cut-off for Tamils for admissions. In Indonesia, Chinese schools are banned even today. Malaysia in the next decade plans to make Malay the national language.

The state here plays an important role in making secular laws. If religious laws interfere with economic and social progress of the country, the state must step in to mediate.

In culturally heterogeneous societies, intergroup conflict may result in additional economic inefficiency, lower the growth rate and even turn violent. Hostilities make property insecure, which slows the rate of capital accumulation.

Multiculturalism can be managed better if the economics of a nation are non-discriminatory. Economic liberty means the right to private property, freedom of contract and a free market allocation of goods including external trade, and of all productive inputs. Historically in India not all ethnic groups have had similar economic rights and opportunities. For example, tribal regions of the north east India continue to remain largely cut off from the main economy and this sense of fruitlessness has over time aggravated their ethnic desire for independence.

The Srilankan conflict has furthered immensely because the Sinhalese continue to feel economically discriminated. One group accuses the other of enjoying supremacy in the bureaucracy, governmental patronage and ruling the elite-based institutions. Demands for state divisions reduce when the economic benefits are fruits of hard work. Such as in Singapore, a country made up of migrants and what binds them together is their economic drive. There may arise a rich-poor conflict but not an ethnic one this way.

In the U.S for instance, all members of society have equal rights to compete in the marketplace. Partly, the tension associated with the absorption of different cultures through immigration has been diffused because their institutions protect individual freedom and promote individual drive for efficiency. Partly, tension has been reduced through attempts to homogenize immigrants into the dominant culture.

When private property and economic rights are allocated along cultural lines, economic inefficiency is inevitable and societies are less prosperous. Control of economic resources is essential to political control, dominant cultural groups structure economic institutions to serve their self-interest. Restrictions on property (e.g., Fiji Indians may not own land; it is difficult for Chinese to own land in Southeast Asia) add to conflict and frustrated rebellions.

Discriminatory restrictions on occupational choice (e.g., labor markets are ethnically segmented in parts of Asia, Africa and the Caribbean; trade unions often are ethnically exclusive; and civil service jobs, a large component of employment in the formal sector, often are the domain of an ethnic group).

Difference in ethnicity will always remains and perhaps tremendously alter the grain of the society. What can bring all ethnic groups together is a common goal that unilaterally contains benefits for all 'individuals' such as an improvement in development indicators, economic efficiency etc. History will continue to review itself and loyalties will change. When this process of disintegration comes to cease, if it ever does, is hard to say but with modernisation, primordial distinctions among people will disintegrate. Classes then may club together and the differences will be based on them.

The future task for all governments should be to be able to find viable solutions between the domestic and international economic constraints and the political aspirations of their people.

Start a discussion on this article