Nationalism and Shadow Lines

Albert Einstien once said "Nationalism is an infantile disease.

It is the measles of mankind.1" This is the view of nationalism that Amitav Gosh later elucidates in his article about nuclear weapons "Countdown." But this view of nationalism as some sort of pathological notion is completely missing the origin and meaning of nationalism as a political ideology. Nationalism is not a pathological ideology, but a neutral tool of political science to be used for the betterment or desolation of human society.The idea of nationalism creates boundaries and boarders, which Gosh describes as "shadow lines.

" Simply defined these lines and boundaries created by nationalism are reflections and distortions of lines and cleavages already existing in society. The book, Shadow Lines, portrays that many of those who cross these lines are punished and some even killed. This black and white imagery of nationalism may in some ways be correct as it applies to the Indian situation but one cannot generalize about the entire corpus of political science literature and the many facets of its application across the globe.Nationalism is defined as "devotion to one's nation; national aspiration2" and during colonial occupation "a policy of national independence.3" From a political science viewpoint it is a political tool to create support for a cause by giving the masses a stake in the politics of the State (enfranchisement) through unity and usually perpetuated by political elites. It is a way to unify seemingly different peoples for a common cause by the creation of an "imagined community.

4" The idea of the imagined community or bonds between different people is not a recent ideology invented by nationalism.For example during the Mughal Empire the idea of a personal relationship with the emperor or elites in another part of the empire unified is equally abstract and created. For that matter the idea of a unified body of worshippers like the idea of Christendom in Christianity or the idea of the ummah in Islam are equally based on the idea of an imagined community as "members..

.will never know most of their fellow members, meet them or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of communion.5"The necessity of nationalism comes from the idea of categorizing and making sense of our surroundings similarly to the way the grandmother liked "things to be neat and in place (152)" and ground herself in an ideology and land even though at times it "had come to be so messily at odds with her nationality (152) ." And moreover on a more human level the reason that nationalism is so attractive along with other ideas of imagined communities is that it releases us "from what man most dreads: isolation.6" People become part of a greater whole and nationalism is just a way to help humans define their identity.In the modern era, nationalism is the major justification for acts of violence against peoples and this has mistakenly been used to claim that the very concept of nationalism is the cause for these problems.

Urvashi Butalia suggests that the violence against women during Partition came in large part to nationalism because the role women played in the nationalist conception of honor7. This goes also for Chaterjee and his invention of Hindu nationalism as an eternal struggle between Hindus and Muslims. However, this is too simplistic an idea, because nationalism is used as a scapegoat for people's actions. Even before the advent of nationalism there were great horrors of violence justified though religion (ie, Crusades), loyalty to ruler or dynasty (ie, War of the Roses) and just the belief of superiority (ie, Mongol Raids of 12th and 13th centuries).Nationalism may in ways codified cleavages in society, but itself can not be seen as the primary advocate of genocide. An analogy can be made between religion and nationalism in terms of their usage, though many wars and acts of violence have continued through the centuries justified through religion this does not necessarily mean that religion itself is necessarily wrong or evil, it is just an available justification.

This idea of nationalism need not only be a justification for inhumanity, but also can be a cause of humanitarian actions and a source of compassion and aid as seen in the stories of Hindus aiding Muslims, Muslims aiding Muslims and visa versa during riots, war, Partition, and other conflicts. (229-230)Indian and Pakistani nationalism as with the idea of the culture, and those within these boundaries, is based on the idea of us-them and the concept of the other. Currently in the United States, other facets to nationalism have been able to avoid the denigration and negation of another to form a national identity. In Pakistan and India the very concepts of their respective nationalisms (after partition) emerged largely in opposition to the other and subsequent demonization of the other, which shows the lack of positive definitions of nationalism and further demonstrated the acute observation of the grandmother that, "once people have forgot they are this or that, Hindu or Muslim, Bengali or Punjabi: they become a family born of the same pool of blood (78).

" The necessity in the South Asian case is that nationalism as an ideology has not completely taken hold as people as they are competing between different identities and this competition creates conflict and chaos.A perfect example of successful nationalism is the present US case, where the pluralistic society celebrates cultural differences and encourages freedom of expression but within the unifying concept of American nationalism, however that it is defined. An objection can be raised that in the American case or even the European case, the amount of bloodshed and the fact that two world wars needed to be fought to create the now harmonious nationalist societies shows the destructive force that nationalism has had as an ideology. The response to that is twofold.

First even in the emergence of American nationalism the necessity did not exist for another to be demonized as an integral part of defining American nationalism, therefore no eternal conflict was or is necessary as a definition of being an American. Secondly, the mistakes of the Europeans and Americans need not be repeated by not only learning from history, but also re-defining nationalism in other terms other than Western nationalism. Nationalism need not go the same path nor be defined in the same secular sense as Western nationalism, but in the end at least still mimic the harmony and plurality of Western society over the last 50 years.