When the British left India in 1947, they bequeathed what was arguably a European notion of the nation state on a region for which the very concept was alien. I say ”arguably” because anything one writes about Partition or the nation state is open to dispute. And until the financial crisis, I relegated this argument to the realm of historians – a subject that interested me personally, but did not seem relevant today.
That was until I noticed a new debate bubbling up on the internet about the future of the nation state. Will it become more powerful as countries scramble to protect themselves from the financial crisis as George Friedman at Stratfor argues in this article? Or does the need for global solutions to the crisis sound a death knell for the nation state, as John Robb suggests here?
Let’s just suppose the paradigm has shifted and the 60-year-old model defined by the departing British colonial rulers is no longer valid. What does that mean for Pakistan and India?
First the history. India under the British was far from what might have been considered a nation-state. Here’s Friedman’s definition: ”A nation is a collection of people who share an ethnicity. A state is the entity that rules a piece of land. A nation-state — the foundation of the modern international order — is what is formed when the nation and state overlap.”
There was no overlap between nation and state when the British left. At the time the region was a patchwork of different people, speaking different languages, with their own ethnic identities. It included more than 500 princely states which had retained nominal autonomy in return for pledging allegiance to the British crown, along with a sizeable proportion of Muslims who fretted about who would protect them in an independent Hindu-dominated India. Yet Britain created not one, but two nation states in the European model — India and Pakistan.
“…the concept of State itself was alien to Indian political thought. It could not be otherwise,” wrote former Indian foreign minister and defence minister Jaswant Singh in his book “Defending India”. “Civilisationally, the Indian nation is a unity, a whole: diverse, multilingual, with numerous shades and varieties of faith and kaleidoscopic cultural distinctions, also varieties of beliefs, languages, dialects, dress, food — but always with that indefinable, civilisational oneness: an Indianness.”
For Singh, a leading player in the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), India was an idea that existed independently of defined geographical borders, or indeed of the kind of shared ethnicity that underpinned the nation state. It’s not an argument that goes down well in Pakistan, which until the late 20th century saw the BJP as a party which challenged its very existence as a separate country. But few would argue with his basic proposition: “An Indian state came into existence, for the whole of India, though admittedly for a divided India, for the first time ever only after 1947.”
After independence, India defined itself as a secular state. Its first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, adopted state socialism and central planning to drag his country out of poverty. Its powerful interior minister, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, more or less successfully corralled many princely states into joining India, with the exception of Kashmir, which remains a problem to this day.
Pakistan struggled to find an identity. Unlike India, which inherited a functioning administration and capital city, Pakistan had to create a new country out of nothing, among people who had often had little in common with the Urdu speakers of the Indian heartland who had fought for its existence. These included not only Balochis, Sindhis, Punjabis and — at the time Bengalis — but also the Pashtuns whose loyalty stretched across the border between the newly created Pakistan and Afghanistan — another problem which endures to this day.
The rest, as they say, is history. Starting with the first war over Kashmir in 1947-48, a region which had once had no need for borders became obsessed with borders.
India fought a disastrous border war with China in 1962 over a stretch of land inhabited only by nomads, the Aksai Chin, not because it needed it, but because, as Nehru said in an address to parliament, ”national prestige and dignity is involved”. Pakistan created a nation through years of centralised military rule that lost it East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, in 1971, and left it floundering as it tried to establish itself as a civilian democracy.
India and Pakistan ended up in an expensive arms race which resulted in both acquiring nuclear bombs; they fought three wars and came to the brink of another in 2001/2002; and they developed a highly militarised frontier which choked trade, divided their people and stifled economic growth.
The British imposition of the nation state has not been kind to either Pakistan or India.
So is there an alternative?
A month ago, I asked in this blog whether the salvation of Pakistan’s economy lay in making peace with India. At the time, it seemed as though regional trade might provide the cushion to see both countries through. But as the global economy spirals into recession, I’m wondering if I asked the right question. In other words, are there other models indigenous to the region that might work better than the now-discredited western postwar view of the world economy?
People are already beginning to talk about the use of barter. In this televised debate, the unlikely duo of former junk bond king turned philanthropist Michael Milken and Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohammad Yunus discuss the value of micro-credit in helping the world deal with everything from poverty and employment to education and healthcare. The idea of providing micro-finance to villagers rather than relying either on state control within nation states or free markets across borders rings true to me, as far as South Asia is concerned, not least because I have seen it in action in India.
But maybe there are other ideas out there? Does the financial crisis offer India and Pakistan a chance to correct the wrongs of history and create their own solutions after 60 years of struggling with a model imposed by an outsider? Or are they condemned, as were western nations by the Great Depression of the 1930s, into the kind of protectionist, nation-state cycle that ultimately led to World War Two?
Trackback
33 comments so far
Previous | 2 | 1 | Next
I have been hearing this from the time i was born.
It is all the British’s fault.
Well, fellow Indians, Get over it. Even if the
queen returns all her jewels and some silly swords etc,
it will not feed the billion indians.
Grains are rotting in food storages and rats and
cockroaches are having a feast. Why can’t we distribute
it to the starving children in the streets - say
through a K-12 education program - food given for free.
Oh! The Indian in you would be waiting for some white
- Posted by sreekumarman (say Clinton et al) to show up and show you how to do it, because we have to do every thing only after
someone shows us how. This is exactly what is wrong
with us. Start thinking for ourself and educate and
feed the entire population.
The article seems confusing, still the broad message seems to be that what should be the way forward for the subcontinent post financial crisis?
Ground realities are different in Pakistan when compared to India. While India did away with the feudal landlords and to a large extent redistributed the land to small farmers, it did not happen at all in Pakistan where the feudals thrive and actually are part of the ruling establishment along the army and bureaucrats. Feudals would never allow land distribution and thus would block prosperity for the poor farmers. If the grip of the feudals could be loosened it would not only bring wealth to the poor it would strengthen democracy as well.
In India there are other challenges but things are better compared to a decade back. Economic reforms had been ignored by the present government in order to please their communist allies and there is hadly any time left before the next election which is due any time now. It would largely depend on the next governement on providing the economic stimulus. It could go on a spending spree by channeling the high savings of Indians but inflation and high interest rates are to be balanced as well.
- Posted by AbhinavMohamed Malleck,
The concept of a common market between India, Pakistan according to me will kick only when both the countries have some commonality.Just study the federal Budget of both the countries, you will then get an idea of what priorities are pursued by both the countries.The investment in education is $400MM in Pakistan while India Invests upwards of $5BN dollars.The competativeness of Indian consumption story was led by gradual reforms over the past 20 years where the Government reduced its dependance on indirect taxes & brought it down from 60% of its revenues to 40%, whereas in Pakistan it is the other way around.Corruption is always prevalent in countries where there is a high incidence of Indirect tax collection & reduces econmic activities.If you study the western countries budget you will notice their indirect tax collection is only 20%, foreign trade thrives in such an environment.I am not saying this as an Indian but pragmatic policies pursued by Indian Leaders like Manmohan Singh ,Chidambaram, Vajpayee have contributed in helping our fiscal siuation to improve considerably where they demonstarted a genuine intent to improve the life of common man,today some of our indian state budget revenues matches the federal government budget of Pakistan.The backward states in India also have some common characteristic like lower education,increased lawlessness,poor state leadership,growth in population,fanatics & bigots whipping passions.The only silver lining i saw was democracy is helping one of the state to slowly inch back to progress.
What is important for Pakistan now is to unleash economic reforms where they shift their taxation policy to make it consumption friendly & make massive doses of Investment in Education at the Primary & Secondary School level & eliminate some of the religious bigots who will sabotage pro growth initiative.It is also important to have a democracy where a single party with a strong leadership & pro business mentality has the reigns of Government.Unless these structural changes are brought about it will not appeal to any rational man that trade or a common market can exist on a sustained basis between countries.
- Posted by VIJAYThis opinion piece is so utterly Euro-centric or WASP-centric as to deserve being called nearly-racist. I suugest that the author read Wiiliam Pfaff’s analyses. Hhe is fully attuned to the distinction made by some political scientists between the concepts of ‘nation-state’ and ’state-nation’, having won many highly-coveted prizes for reporting, notably on the recent Balkan wars and ethnic-cleansing episodes, and has contributed excellent analyses on what Ken Ichi Ohmae views as the trend of the near-term future — the rise of ‘region-states’.
In fact, India and Pakistan, together with Iran and maybe Turkey, still have excellent propects of becoming the most successful ‘region state’ after NAMERICA/NAFTA, despite the attempts by the disavowed Bush administration to drive a wedge between India and Iran, notably on the issue of the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, to the great chagrin of seasoned geopolitical- affairs commentator and former diplomat, Bhadrakumar.
- Posted by Mohamed MALLECKWell if this happens , that would indicate unity , which is a dire need of the day. Unity would wipe out the current crisis which the region is facing right now. But any way whats done is done and there is no turning back. what is now required is to bring back the social harmoney that once used to exist in the entire region. Borders fuelled racism , created hatred , and engaged the people into negativity , which other wise would have advanced the region a million times.
The need of the day is to engage people in travel and tourism and cross culture activities which can revive their centuries old affiliation.
- Posted by Pk WoodzVie,
About your comment on the caste system and the Dalits - you will find that the link you posted is from a Christian Evangelical organization called the Dalit Freedom Network. Promoting the oppression of the dalits is part of the evangelical business model as it can be used to collect money from unsuspecting people trying to be good Christians.
On the other hand the fact is that the Indian state acknowledges the mistreatment of untouchables and lower castes and hence runs the largest affirmative action program in the world. Further this program was started in 1950 when the Indian constitution was adopted. This official acknowledgement thus preceded similar attempts in South Africa and USA for disadvantaged groups.
- Posted by AmitMicro Finance Model looks a viable alternative solution for countries like India & Pakistan. I know of a company which is focussing on Urban Poverty Alleviation. Some of the way they are making a difference to the Indian landscape are provided below.
1. Associate a funding relationship with well known Institutions like Michael Dell Foundation,Chrysallis Capital & have board presence with former Lehamn Executive. This is very important to establish credibility.
2. Hire great talents, they have roped in people from a diverse segments of the society like media journalist,Bankers, Advertising Executives. They have leveraged the internet to get people across the globe like students from Harvard & Other Premier Institutions.
3.Address some niche needs like they go about funding 90% of the females for some of their needs like capital accumulation for their business,meeting their social needs of childrens education,buying some assets for their house or repaying the costly debts for their business. The tenor for these loans average about 1 year & ticket size is around $500.The repayment track record is 97%.
4.The big advantage i see is there are close to 10000 people who have got a direct employment & they have been able to finance more than 300000 customers. Integrating this as a noble cause the employees have been trained by people from Harvard Grads is an excellent feeling for them.The mutual happiness derived far exceeds the benefits of higher paying jobs.The trained employees have also provided valuable inputs to their customers in choosing & using these credits effectively for their long term sustainable earnings.
5.Is this model scalable & you can bring in 100 Million customers to excite someone like Michael Milken or Blackrock, I am sure it can. The czars of Junk bonds can come up with some debt products which makes this scalable opportunity. In a country like India the state owned banks can move aggressively in lending to these Microfinance companies.
6.There are many trickle down benefits in this model since it can propel consumption,it can propel savings, It can propel government revenues , it can propel a better standard of living than what it was yesterday for people who availed this loans.
7.The threat i see to this model is what is your ability to attract the right talent. This works on a low cost model so incentive for people to grow in this industry are weak. Can the Government help this process, Yes they can by giving Income tax breaks to people who work in this industry & also giving additional incentives like land & opening a supply stores like a military canteen where you get products at cheaper price.There would also be some rocky movements when you scale up at a faster clip with bad loans & liquidity impacting the funding for these loans. It is important to provide some budgetary support of cash subsidy to make this sustainable for the longer run.
8.What form of organisation structure should this evolve into, I would think this should be in the private sector where the ownership stakes are distributed amongst customers,employees & some public holding.It stands a greater chance of success this way.
I want to know views of other readers how they would see this working.
- Posted by VIJAYVie,
Every society has many evils.The most liberal country in the world US has still pockets of racism prevalent in most of the “Red States” which are the conservative parts.What you need to appreciate about India is “BJP” which is a party identified with hinduism has not been able to win a majority despite 82% of the population being Hindus. Even if you look at the US elections 95% of the blacks voted for Barack Obama.I think one of the dominant consideration would have been color of the skin.As you fast forward to 20 years ahead i am sure even an AA may not get that percentage of votes.
The point where i am coming from is a Functioning Democracy gradually erases of many ills of the society slowly.For a democracy to thrive secular education in schools & colleges should be inculcated.It is very important that fringe elements in society like sadhu,maulvi,bishops are condemned regularly across the globe, So you can hold elected leaders accountable for governance.Jefferson said to maintain purity of both government & religion it is important to seperate them.
Going back to the subject of this post will Micro Finance be an answer to address a global slowdown.Will globalization collapse in period of economic recession the answer is yes. If you look at periods of peace & prosperity in the world it was during the period 2003 to 2007, this was well reflected in global stock market index which were at its peak. During times of economic turbulence it is very likely across every country opportunist politician will talk of failed policies & whip up passions. The new definition of GDP is GOD,DOGMA & PROTECTION. As long as educated people try to remain above these petty consideration there is hope that we will see some momentum gaining for peace followed by prosperity. One thing surely i would want to see is whether a Islamic country can embrace a secular policy which may be a first step in a new direction called ” Progress”.
- Posted by VIJAYBefore 1947 partition - there was India Afghanistan and Iran in South Asia.
Solution : Confederation of (former India) India-Pakistan -Bangladesh.
*Single military establishment with non-Indian command.
*Single market with a common currency.
*Union States with local administration and designated power to legislate.
- Posted by hari“Let’s just suppose the paradigm has shifted and the 60-year-old model defined by the departing British colonial rulers is no longer valid. What does that mean for Pakistan and India?”
—-NOTHING– the British were just plain bandits who came & looted India, striping it to the last penny, no contribution, no exchange of culture, just a bunch of shallow Indophobists & superficial western intellectuals trying even till to-date to understand India the great civilization, but can’t scratch even the surface, it’s still beyond their mental grasp…
- Posted by IndianMyra, Its an excellent article. An increased economic activity between the two countries should have a positive impact on the relations. Its just not natural that we import or export to countries thousands of miles away and ignore the markets next door. There is so much that the two countries can gain from each other however Indians have little knowledge about Pakistan and the opportunities it presents beyong a very biased picture painted by Indian media.
Here are some comments from Melchior Selected Trust Pakistan Opportunities Fund; “In looking at the Pakistan market, we see many similarities with India,” Graham said, noting Pakistan had been described as “India at half the price”.
To Sanjay’s comments “…Hinduism on the other hand is seclar and non-proselytising”, how do you explain the Caste System especially the treatement to 250M UNTOUCHABLES or Dalits in this modern age?
- Posted by viehttp://www.dalitnetwork.org/
Before the event of the British, there was no India, except certain provinces The British brought about the connections between these provinces by building the railway system & eventually India was formed. But then found that India was to big to rule & was more or less draining them. So they looked for an exit strategy & politically found it in Gandhi. Because the truth through history is that (especially in those days), no country could get independence without really fighting for it through battles.
- Posted by abiThe British left their hallmark Politics “Divide & Rule”
which is being followed till this date & the state of the
country more or less shows it.
This is totally in contrast with the Americans where Washington defeated the British Military might & latter, Lincoln took on & defeated their biggest Strength, the politics of division, through the American civil war.
sidney,
i just want to clear few points that you have mentioned.
“owever he also ignored the fact that millions of people who are still in poverty and millions more will continue to fall into poverty as well.”
it is true millions of people still live in poverty. to be very precise as of ‘07 23 % on indians live under poverty line. but you will appreciate it if i mention that at the time of independence and during ’50s it was near 50 % and it went up even to 64 %. for the last 40 years poverty is consistently decreasing at a rate of 1% a year.
“He also failed to mention the growing problem of Hindu extremism which is lashing out not only Muslims, but Christians and Sikhs as well.”
it is also true religious fundamentalism (both hindu and muslim)is in rise in india and it pose a serious problem for the country if unchecked. but so far i haven’t heard anything against sikh. if you have the ‘84 sikh riot in your mind. that was not done by hindu extremists.
“The so called “progressive” Hindus are starting to take the form of the Zionists of Israel …….. Kashmir starting to reflect the likes of the West bank and Gaza, as India continues to claim a region whose people want nothing to do with and one where India has no business occupying it.”
kashmir problem has nothing to do with religion. you talk with any other non-hindu indian , you will get the same reply.
also whether india has anything to do with kashmir or not is a complicated issue. so i am choosing not to comment on this here.
“Let’s not ignore the fact that India’s rise was due in part to it’s “hanging on the coat-tails” of the British. ”
gosh! they ruined our country. are you in your senses? check the poverty level, literacy, industrialization, economy …etc. compare the situation before the british and and after they had gone. the rise of britain is due to the “blood money”.
and the rise of india has nothing to do with contemporary britain.
- Posted by unknown indian