1
PhD Thesis
Title: Philosophy of Cosmopolitan Nationalism and Ethno-Centric Collective Consciousness in Post-Colonial Societies: Pakistan Context
Candidate for PhD in Philosophy: Sahar Gul Bhatti
Supervisor: Dr. Arifa Farid Professor (R) Department of Philosophy, University of Karachi
Thesis Submitted through Proper Channel/ Department of Philosophy, University of Karachi July 12, 2017
2
Acknowledgments
I am highly indebted to my supervisor Professor Dr. Arifa Farid, for showing confidence in me and agreeing to supervise my PhD dissertation. I thank her for her immense knowledge and valuable suggestions during the period of writing, which kept my rather wide-ranging thoughts focused. I am so grateful to her for always agreeing to spare her precious time for discussion on the subject whenever I needed.
I am also grateful to my course convener, Dr. Abdul Wahab Suri, for his kind cooperation vis-à-vis suggestions and feedbacks on my dissertation outline particularly, and moral support generally, that he carried on throughout the years until the final moments of my work.
I would also like to thank Philosophy Department’s Professors Dr. Zulfiqar Mahar, or Mr. Amjad Channar for providing me guidance whenever I needed during my research work.
A special word of gratitude is due for my colleague Ms. Mashra Binte Ghazi for her noteworthy consistency in supporting me and cooperating with me immensely in the final preparations of the thesis.
I am obliged to the Department of Philosophy, University of Karachi, for giving me opportunity to complete my PhD, without which my dream of pursuing the highest degree could not have come true.
I also acknowledge that this dissertation could not have been possible without the emotional support of my parents, siblings and son Junaid Ahmed and many unnamed friends, who have always been there for my personal, moral and intellectual support, whenever I required it along the way.
Finally, I would take this opportunity to pay especial thanks to my life partner Javed Ahmed Chandio, who always shared his honest views and comments on my research and extended help to me with his remarkable patience throughout my research work.
Sahar Gul Bhatti
Candidate for Award of PhD Degree, Department of Philosophy, University of Karachi July 12, 201
3
Abstract The discipline of Philosophy has always been widely encompassing inquiries from varied disciplines of both pure and social sciences; that is why now it includes almost every dimension of society. Pioneered in the Greek era, and evolved with the magnificent ancient historical foundations, Philosophy has gained worthy interdisciplinary vastness in 19th and 20th centuries. This thesis is an effort to explore Philosophy of cosmopolitan nationalism and its application in Sindh. This thesis discusses how the idea of nationalism has been critically evaluated as the world witnessed that the oppression under Hitler’s Nazism and Mussolini’s Fascism were also dubbed as nationalism. This damaged the justified and true nationalistic struggles of the beleaguered nations, of which Pakistan is the best example. This thesis is an effort to understand evolution of history, connotation and merits and demerits of cosmopolitan nationalism to comprehend the transformation of patriotic chronicles of Sindh’s political history into the precincts of cosmopolitan nationalism in Pakistan. Pakistan is a federation formed by the constituent units, in which the relationship between the units and the federation has always been estranged due to the thrust of the uniformity paradigm since the country’s inception, which cost division of the country in 1971. This thesis bases its main argument on Marxist perspective, which offers an enduring answer to the problems of Sindh by reforming its society with the help of class struggle as envisaged by Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels. The Marxist proposition of class struggle is judiciously used in the thesis; since Marx’s paradigm was universalistic, there is no doubt that in the present century cosmopolitan nationalism may take enormous benefit from Marxian paradigm in promoting class struggle to unite people of different ethnicities in Pakistan, as we observe this happening in the different parts of the world, particularly in the 20th century. The same can happen in Sindh as well. This especially is being done by some Marxist political activists in Pakistan, such as R. B. Palijo’s socialist paradigm in relation to Sindh province of Pakistan, to resolve tension between different ethnicities in the province of Sindh.
4
ت لخ یص
ح ف ئ ئ ع تق ی عل لسفہ اپنی وسعت کی و جہ سے ہم یشہ خالص سا یس اور سماجی سا یس کے لوم کے سواالت و قی نکات کو ا پنے می دائرے کے
ف م اتدر خگہ د یتا ہ ے۔ یہ ہی س بب ہ ے کہ لسفے م یں معاشرے کا ہر پہلو سا ل ہ ے۔
ج س کی ئنتاد یں ی وتانی دور م یں ئڑ یں، اور ا پنی فد یم تارتخی ئنتادوں کے ساتھ ارتقا تذ ئر ہوا، اوئ یسو یں اور ئ یسو یں صدی وں م یں کث یر الشع تات
تح ی ف ت ل ف نے ا پنے ق قی سواالت کو لسفے کے ساتھ ہم آ ہتگ کر کے اس کو وسعت عطا کی۔ یہ ھ یسز کازموی و یین قوم یت پستدی کے لسفے
س مج کو ھنے اور اس نصور کی صو یہ ستدھ م یں الگو کرنے کی ا تک کوشش ہ ے۔
ت یہ ھ یسز اس تقطہ ئر غور کرتا ہ ے کہ )اب تک( کس طرح قوم یت پستدی کے نصور کا پیق تدی خائزہ ل تا خاتا ر ہا ہ ے، تاالخصوص اس و جہ
ت ہ ت ت سے ھی کہ لر کی تاز یت پستدی اور مسولنی کی فاس بت پستدی کو ھی قوم یت پستدی کے اصطالح کے ساتھ خات ا خاتا ر ہا ہ ے۔ اس کی
پ ہ م و جہ سے کمزور اور مخ بور اقوام کی خائز اور سخی قومی خدو جہد کو ئڑا دھ چکہ ہن چا، ج س کی پہیر ین متال م یں تا کستان م یں لنی ہ ے۔
ت ل م س یہ ھ یسز ا تک کوشش ہ ے کہ کازموی و یین قوم یت پستدی کی ارتقانی تار تخ، اس کا فہوم، اس کی خو پب وں و خا مبوں کو مجھ کر ستدھ کی س تاسی
س ل س تار تخ کے قوم یت پستدایہ تارتخی لسلے کو تاکستان م یں کازموی و یین قوم یت پستدی کی ئن تاد ئر مجھا خانے۔ تاکستان اکا پبوں کی یتانی
ع ج ہونی ا تک وفاق یت ہ ے، ج س م یں ملک کے ئننے ساتھ ہی وفاق اور اکا پبوں کے ما ب ین ت لق یوتا ہوا اور ا ننی ر ہا ہ ے، ج س کا س بب
ت یکساپ یت کو اکا پبوں ئر ز ئردسنی ھو یتا ہ ے، خو کہ ۱۹۷۱ م یں ملک کے یو پنے کا س بب یتا۔
ت ت خ ئ اس ھ یسز کا مرکزی تقطہ مارکسوادی نصور ئر یتدھا ہ ے خو کہ ستدھ کے س تاسی مسا ل کا یہ تختہ ل ی ش کرتا ہ ے کہ اس کے معاشرے کو
ت گ ت ط یقانی خدو جہ کی مدد سے ی تد ل ک تا خا سکتا ہ ے، ج س طرح کارل مارکس اور فر تڈرک اپی لس نے نصور ک تا تھا۔ اس ھ یسز م یں ط یقانی خدو جہد
ئ ل کا تقطہ نظر میصقایہ طور ئر ی ش ک تا گ تا ہ ے۔ خوتکہ ط یقاطی خدو جہد کا مارکسوادی نصور کایتایگ یر تھا، اس لنے مو خودہ صدی م یں کازموی و ییں
س قوم یت پستدی مارکسی پیراڈایم سے ن ے یتاہ فاتدہ اتھا سکنی ہ ے تاکہ غوام کو ی کجہ کرنے کے لنے تاکستان کے مختلف پ ل کے لوگوں
یک ت کو اکٹھا ک تا خا سکے ج س طرح ہم ئ یسو یں صدی م یں مختلف ممالک م یں ا پسا ہونے د ھنے ہ یں، و ہی ستدھ م یں ھی ہ و سکتا ہ ے،
ت تاالخصوص ستدھ م یں، ا س لنے کہ رسول تخش ل نجو کا ستدھ کے خوالے سے سما خواد تقطتہ نظر پہت ہی اہم ہ ے، ج س کی ئ ن تاد ئر ستدھ
س م یں پ لی کس تدگی کو ختم ک تا خا س کتا ہ ے۔
5
Contents
Abstract (English)
Abstract (Urdu)
Introduction 1
Chapter 1 Theories of Nationalism in History
1.1 Philosophy of Nationalism: Exploring History ……………………………………………………………………..18 1.1 a. Evolution of the Philosophy of Nationalism: Emergence of Nationhood………………………….18 1.1 b. Evolution of Nationalism and its Theories……………………………..………………………….……………..19 1.2 Definition of Nationalism………………………………………………………….……………………………………….…20 1.3 Is Nationalism Good or Bad?...... 20 1.4 Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)………………………………………………………………………………….…21 1.5 Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)………………………………………………………………………………………………..23 1.6 Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803)………………………………………………………………..………….…….24 1.6 a. Significance of Language in Nationalism…………………………………….………………………………….…24 1.7 Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814)………………………………………………………………………..….….…..26 1.8 Fredrick Schlegel (1772-1829)……………………………………………………………………………..……….….….26 1.9 Marx (1818-83) and Engels (1820-95)……………………………………….………………………….…….….……27 1.10 Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919)……………………………………………………………………………….…..…..29 1.11 Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924)………………………………………………………………………..………..30 1.12 Joseph Stalin (1879-1953)……………………………………………………………………………………………..33 1.13 John Stuart Mill (1806-73)………………………………………………………………………………..……….....34 1.14 Lord Acton (1834-1902)…………………………………………………………………………………..………...…35 1.15 Emile Durkheim (1858-1917)…………………………………………………………………………..…………...35 1.16 Max Weber (1864-1920)……………………………………………………………………………….………….....36 1.17 Historian’s bankruptcy………………………………………………………………….…………………….…….....37 1.18 20th century thinkers on nationalism (1915-1945)……………………….…………………….…….....38 1.19 Tagore, R. N………………………………………………………………………………….……………………….…..…38 1.20 Carleton J. H. Hayes, (1882 – 1964)…………………………………………….………………………..….…..39 1.21 Hans Kohn’s (1933-1971)…………………………………………………………….………………………..….….42 1.22 E. H. Carr (1892-1982)…………………………………………………….………….……………………..…..….…43 1.23 Elie Kedourie (1926- 1992)……………………………………………………………………………….……...….44 1.24 Earnest Gellner (1925 –1995)………………………………………….…………………………………..…...... 45 1.25 Pakistan: Sindh Case………………………………………………………….………………………………..……...48 1.26 Original………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……....…51
6
Chapter 2 Philosophy of Cosmopolitan Nationalism and its Corresponding Manifestations
2.1 Principle of citizenship …………………………………………………………..………………….……….…..……...... 56 2.2 Pluralism and Unity in Diversity…………………………………………………………………….….……….…...…56 2.3 Understanding Cosmopolitanism………………………………………………………………….….……….…….….57 2.4 Cosmopolitanism in Political history context………………………….…………………………….….……..….58 2.5 True Cosmopolitan Individual…………………………………………….……………………………….….………..…59 2.6 Liberal nationalism and Cosmopolitanism……………………………..……………………….….…………..…..60 2.6 a. Revival of nationalist struggles…………………………………………………………..………….….…...…..…..60 2.6 b. Defining Liberal Nationalism: All in the Same Boat…………….………………………….……..…..….….61 2.6 c. Common Factors in Liberal Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism.…….………... ……….……..……..61 2.7 Post-World War II Scene-Group identity and National identity…….……………………..…...……...…63 2.8 Being a Nationalist and Cosmopolitan simultaneously………………….….…………….….…..…..………63 2.9 Rooted Cosmopolitanism……………………………………………………….………...………………..…..….…….…64 2.10 Cosmopolitan Nationalism to Cosmopolitan Democracy………………..……………….…....…….…...64 2.11 Critique………………………………………………………………………………….…………….………….….…….…..….67 2.12 Critique on Cosmopolitanism and Globalization…………………………………….………………….….…..68
Chapter 3 Narratives of Nationalistic Politics in Sindh- Historical Perspective
3.1 First Epoch: 1906-1936 (Struggle for Separation of Sindh from Bombay)… …………………………81 3.2 Second Epoch of nationalist narrative: 1937-1947 (Before Partition)……… ………………….……..88 3.3 Third Epoch: 1947- 2010 (Squabble for national existence, 3.4 share of water resources and claim of permanent majority)……………………………………………..…92 3.5 Political Evolution of Sindhi Nationalism-Review of Different Narratives:… ……………….…….….99 3.6 Nationalist Narrative of G. M. Syed ………………………………………………………………………………..…100 3.7 Nationalist Narrative of Hyder Bakhsh Jatoi……………………………………………………………………..…102 3.8 Nationalist Narrative of Rasool Bux Palijo…………………………………………………………..………….…..103 3.9 Common Denominators of the National narrative of Sindh’s politics……………………..…………..104
Chapter 4 Nature of Relation between Cosmopolitan Nationalism and Ethnocentric Nationalism 106
4.1 Highlighting the Issue……………………………………………………………………………………………………..…108 4.2 Pakistan context…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……109 4.3 Sindh Case………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……….110 4.4 Punjab Share Plus Islamization………………………………………………………………………………..…….…..111 4.5 Impact of Internal and external wrongs………………………………………………………………………….….111 4.6 Nationalism is Pre-Partition……………………………………………………………………………………..…….….112 4.7 Nationalistic Sentiment Before Partition…………………………………………………………………….…..…112 4.8 Cause of Pakistan issue- why Separatist movements……………………….………………..…………..…113 4.9 Punjabi Hegemony and Provinces in Dilemma……………………………………..……..………………..….114 4.10 Sindhi Muslims Then………………………………………………………………………….…………….……..….….116 4.11 Sindhi Muhajir unity prospects?...... ……………...... 116 4.12 Religion to be central………………………………………………………………………….…………………..……..117 4.13 Movements suppressed…………………………………………………………………….…………………………..117 7
4.14 What contributed to Post Partition ethnic chaos…………………….………….….……………….……..118 4.15 Key solutions: Conditional to respect Coexistence……………………………….………………….……..119
Chapter 5 Class Perspectives on Nationalism 5.1 What Marxism and Marxists thinks about Theory Nationalism………………….…………………..…123 5.2 Lenin on self-determination…………………………………………………………….……………………………...124 5.3 Communist Manifesto/Pre-Modern paradigm of Marxism- Technical…………….…………….….126 5.4 Stalin’s Definition of Nationalism……………………………………………………………….…….……….……..127 5.5 Communistic Idealism………………………………………………………………………….…………………………..127 5.6 Cosmopolitan Commodity Crosses Cultural Identity Limitations……………….…………..………….128 5.7 How nationalism Entered Marxism- Philosophical Argument……………………….……….………….128 5.8 Austro-Marxists…………………………………………………………………………………………….………………….129 5.9 Nationalist struggle: Case Studies……………………………………………………………….………………..…..130 5.10 Belarusian nation-building………………………………………………………………………….………….……….130 5.11 Case Study 2 Japan: The previous views on the concept of nationalism: …………….…………..131 5.12 R. B. Palijo’s Socialist Paradigm of Struggle………………………………………………………….………….139
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….……..142
Bibliography
8
Introduction:
Philosophy, which previously was consisted of only metaphysical and epistemological questions, long ago enriched itself by encompassing moral and socio-political problems into its domain. Even during the Greek era we see how in Plato’s Dialogues questions of morality, goodness, justice, people’s rights and rule of law entered the philosophical sphere, where, earlier, the Naturalists ruled for decades. Advancing with that glorious primordial base till this date, Philosophy has got magnanimous vastness added to its domain. That is the reason we see the problems related to pure political thought and practice entering philosophy, and Philosophy is so porous that it immediately creates spaces in itself for almost every discipline. The disciplines, both related to pure sciences, such as Physics, Cosmology, Biology, and socio-political sciences, such as, Economics, Psychology, Theology, Aesthetics, or Anthropology, have developed strong leverages within the realms of Philosophy and Philosophy has harmonized the questions and investigations respective to these fields with the inquires of Philosophy. Similarly, the subject of Nationalism entered in the discourses of Politics, Political Science, and Philosophy in the Greek era, where the city states existed and ran under well-described laws.
We see how in the twentieth century’s political turmoil the world gets practically oriented towards nationalism. While the notion of the nation-state or a sovereign state is the 19th- Century occurrence, before which the concept of being loyal to one territory or sovereignty was not very widely felt or practiced at individual levels let alone at the same of collective.
Over the entire period of history, we see how nationalism has been defined in various ways, depending upon the theorists’ intellectual approach or personal sentiment towards the subject or issues respectively. One of its definitions could be that since one's national 9 securities and comforts are different to any other, so are the ambitions, hence such nations may create their independent identity instead of coexisting with the same other by needlessly merging their distinctness into each other.
However, we must not forget that in history the term nationalism has been used as an alternate to narcissistic racism that the world witnessed and experienced in the form of Nazism and Fascism. Such type of nationalism is called Expansionist Nationalism, which is the most aggressive form of asserting self-identity. Therefore, there is difference between the nationalism of oppressed and oppressing nations—without understanding this difference, one cannot understand the diversifications and fragilities of the subject.
The other kinds of nationalism include Liberal Nationalism, Cultural or Ethnic Nationalism, Civic Nationalism, and Cosmopolitan Nationalism. Nationalism is the yearning of a nation or group identity to self-rule or autonomy. No one can snatch the feeling of patriotism from anyone; such feeling is often ascribed to fatherland, motherland or to common cultural rudiments including language cherished by a group identity.
This thesis emphasizes on how nationalism evolved in history, by transforming itself into the most equitable forms of humanitarian ideologies such as cosmopolitan nationalism, with especial focus on its potential emergence and impact in a post-colonial society like that of Pakistan.
We see how cosmopolitan nationalism—the focal subject of this thesis— challenges the simpler orientation of nationalism that endorses upon culture, ethnicity, language, common history and goals as essential for creating a genuine nationalism.
10
This study entitled as “The Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism and the Ethno-Centric Collective Consciousness in Post-Colonial Societies: Pakistan Context”, makes an effort to understand that potentially how collective nationalistic sentiment like cosmopolitan nationalism may create a collective bond among those who have similar political and ideological goals irrespective of their ethno-cultural peculiarities.
The first chapter of the thesis, strongly endorses upon the use and interpretation of the very terminology nationalism as mentioned above, that it is often taken as parallel to the coercion that was inflicted by Nazism and Fascisms upon the masses of Germany and Italy respectively. This thesis sufficiently rationalizes that describing Nazism or fascism as a nationalism has damaged the justified and true nationalistic struggles of the beleaguered nations, of which Pakistan is the best example.
The emergence of cosmopolitan collective identities in plural cultures is the phenomenon of post-agrarian societies. Industrialization leading towards urbanization expedited the historical course of forming and framing plural societies, which made diverse populations realize that contrary to the homogenous identities of agrarian societies, some shared cosmopolitan identities ought to be developed. It is evident from recent history of 19th and 20th centuries that diverse groups of population having competing narratives and conflicting interests may also earn a cosmopolitan and shared identities and interests.
It actually has cultivated the rich space for the recognition that not only to accept the diversity but to celebrate it in a true sense is also the core principle of cosmopolitanism and unity in diversity. Though such happenings are not easily possible, as behaviors, approaches, norms and customary practices of societies are shaped more by the objective realities of those societies instead of mere cultural wishes.
Having a shared political, economic & cultural commonality among all human beings of the globe is yet a dream to be actualized in societies of the world; one of the causes of its 11 emergence could be the sudden demographic changes in the world through incremental as well as mass migrations during wars and famines. However, the genesis of the idea of being one with entire humanity is not just outcome of political interest; in fact, it is original human desire and need as well, to coexist with fellow humans.
Not many countries have ethnically, linguistically and religiously homogenous nations. Several countries’ experience is in front of us, where the diversified ethnic identities are enveloped under one single tag for global recognition, the groups inside cherish and avail all the ingredients of nationhood associated with their unique and distinct identities.
As viewed by John Rawls, that a nationalist with cosmopolitan outlook would favor group identity that can become or is already a national identity, sustenance of which depends upon human “flourishing” in a “just polity” that protects nations along with the individuals with surety of “self-governance”.1 This is what we call cosmopolitanism in true sense. Can Pakistan become that ideal form of cosmopolitan identity? This thesis is an effort towards exploring this question.
Keeping in view the background of the strained relationship between State versus nations, as well as among diverse ethnic groups in Pakistan, the thesis looks for analogies from history and the current world that how similar problem has been handled in the developed countries. It will explore the nature of cosmopolitan nationalism and its potential to bridge gaps among diverse population.
This thesis, primarily, would focus on why cosmopolitan nationalism is more feasible instead of straightaway adopting cosmopolitanism and “its internationalist outlook without the dangler 'nationalism'?”2
1 John Rawls, Political Liberalism. (Columbia University Press,1993), 15-22. 2 Kai, Nielsen, “Cosmopolitan Nationalism”. The Monist 82, No. 3 (1999): 446-468. 12
Having a fair understanding of various forms of nationalism is compulsory for this project, as mentioned by Louise Blakeney in his article “The Cosmopolitan Nationalism and Modernist History of Rabindranath Tagore and W. B. Yeats”. Blakeney cites Tagore for a balanced form of nationalism, "neither the colorless vagueness of [universalist] cosmopolitanism, nor the fierce self-idolatry of nation-worship."3 Habermas's notion of ‘constitutional patriotism' suggests that it is too thin to provide the 'we-feeling' that is vital to a cohesive nation and a well-functioning cosmopolitan democracy.4
This thesis will try to provide answers to the questions like: What is cosmopolitan nationalism? What is the nature of relation between cosmopolitan nationalism and ethno- centric nationalism? Can cosmopolitan goal in practice alleviate global wrongs and inequalities vis-à-vis identity crises? How Cosmopolitan nationalism can solve the diversity issue of Pakistan? What are the challenges and opportunities in that pace? Would a cosmopolitan citizen accept the great variety of forms of life, practices, art-forms, languages, religions, cuisines etc. grudgingly or pleasingly?5 Would this diversity form be “seen as a source of human richness, a richness that enhances our world”.6 Unlike its past, how can Pakistani now start “rather than weakening of national identities” to help them “take on a more cosmopolitan character”.7 What are trends of ethnocentric nationalism in Sindh?8 What features of Sindhi nationalism make it cosmopolitan or bar it from being so? What are the causes of antagonistic relationship between ethnocentric nationalism and processes of modernization in Sindh province of Pakistan, in post-colonial context? How in Gellner’s view the strength of “cosmopolitan nationalism” is in direct proportion to ethnocentric nationalism?
3 Louise Blakeney Williams. “Overcoming the ‘Contagion of Mimicry’: The Cosmopolitan Nationalism and Modernist History of Rabindranath Tagore and W. B. Yeats”, The American Historical Review 112 No. 1 (Feb. 2007): 69-100 4 Robyn Eckersley. “From Cosmopolitan Nationalism to Cosmopolitan Democracy”, Review of International Studies, 33 No. 4 (2007): 675-692. 5 Nielsen, “Cosmopolitan Nationalism”. 2 6 Ibid, 2. 7 Eckersley, “From Cosmopolitan Nationalism to Cosmopolitan Democracy”, 675. 8 Present Pakistan consists of five provinces, Sindh, Balochistan, Punjab, Khyber Pakhtukhwa, and Gilgit Baltistan. 13
This research is an advanced step towards understanding the transformation of Sindhi into the precincts of cosmopolitan nationalism in Pakistan, which is a federation formed by its constituent units. This research identifies the limits of ethno-centric nationalism in post- colonial societies. It may also challenge the collective identity-consciousness and uniformity paradigm as happened in the post-colonial society like that of Pakistan, and highlight the possible initiatives that may help restructuring the relationship between the federation and its constituent units.
This research has employed two kinds of sources and methods. 1. The primary sources on the subject is the history of cosmopolitan nationalism versus ethnocentric nationalism; 2. The trends of Sindhi nationalism throughout the history of Pakistan and before, ethnic dimensions and nation states in Pakistan etc.
The first chapter “Theories of Nationalism in History” of the thesis begins from introducing how the concept of nationhood emerged in the 18th century Europe, and chronologically discusses in detail the history of theories of nationalism from several political perspectives. The first chapter thoroughly explores the definitions of the term nationalism, and it chronologically defines ahead a range of ideas of the theorists of nationalism on the subject. It begins from the Eighteenth-century philosopher Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) whose views on nationalism can be understood from this saying: ‘Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole’.9
Rousseau supposed the political connotation that fortified publics and societies from the egocentricity and greediness. Rousseau in the Polish Convention 1772 valued the “virtue” of masses and their patriotic enthusiasm that enhanced the passion of the Poles towards patriotism. In his views patriotism should be inculcated by means of training in the milk of mother, which teaches the new-born respecting and loving the land.
9 Jean- Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, trans. George Douglas Howard Cole (1762), 75 14
German Philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) pronounces his views on nationalism in his article “What is Enlightenment” (1887). In that article defining difference between public and private reasons Kant emphasizes that man is not permitted to working on public reason, he/she only has leverage to exercise private reason, as the public reason is the commandment of the state. He further explains how the public and private reasons relate to the law and individual’s choice in order to analytically scrutinize based on reason. He calls it freedom, that public law has to be collectively followed, however people should have space to censure it publicly if citizens are unhappy. That is what one calls freedom, in the view of Kant.
Then comes the idea of language of forefathers of Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803), who defined language as an undeniable right, which is highly subjective; hence he denounces snatching a race of its language as a lethal violence. Herder also categorized seizing or depriving a nationality of its language as degradation. To him language permeates into cognitive processes, snatching that from any group is equal to snatching from them the very thought, creativity, intuitions and spontaneous association of individual with the majority as a nation.
Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814) associates ideas of shared soil and analogous sentiments, which give birth to a united identity. He signifies how a language strengthens bond between citizens living on a shared territory. Similarly, Fredrick Schlegel (1772-1829) condemns the idea of artificially combining diversified groups into one identity, especially with coercion.
This chapter also highlights Marxist perspective that how Marx (1818-83) and Engels (1820- 95) did not clearly articulate their views on national question, however, their perspectives on Irish question obviously states that they believed that the socialist struggles of the proletariat would ripen and materialize only there where identity question would already be resolved and the nations would associate themselves based on class question. However, 15
Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919) believed class question was superior as compared to nationalistic questions; in my view, she could not get much time to see how identity question superseded the class question in post-colonial societies beyond mid of the 20th century. Even now in Pakistan the class system is brutally strong, there is ruthless class-based divide, yet the ethnocentric politics overshadows the issues of the proletariat versus nobility of diversified ethnicity. Unlike Luxemburg, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924) viewed that when beleaguered nation’s bourgeoisie is combating against the antagonist, we must support it. In his views, “We fight against the privileges and violence of the oppressor nation”.10
This chapter also highlights how Austro-Marxists out of their imprudence go to the extent that they label nationalism as a false consciousness. And unlike them the Marxists like Renner and Bauer valued nationalism based on common culture and language, they interestingly defined it as an expression of genuine differences and reality portrayed through a fictive or fantasy-based idea of nationalism. John Stuart Mill (1806-73) enunciates his ideas of nationalism that a group of people can form a nationality if they are integrated by commonalities, their distinct features keep them separate from others and simultaneously bring them together to declare a common national identity. Lord Acton (1834-1902) thinks that by including several nationalities into one mega state or empire without oppressing them was not a wrong idea, however, oppression was condemnable. Emile Durkheim (1858- 1917) stresses upon religion as a socio-ethical community; he believed that religion is eternally cohesive that unites collectivity through rituals. While Max Weber defines a nation to be a group of people that form “a state of their own”.11
This chapter further elaborates cosmopolitan nationalism with examples in which Ernest Renan (1823-92) states examples of Switzerland that how a country, with three or four races, two religions and three languages, is called a nation? Besides that, the Twentieth century thinkers on nationalism (1915-1945) also include R. N. Tagore’s idea of cosmopolitan
10 Vladimir Ilʹich Lenin, Marxism and Nationalism, (1916), 226. 11 Max Weber, The Nation, (1948). In J. Hutchinson and A. D. Smith (eds.), “Nationalism: Critical Concepts in Political Science”, London, and New York: Routledge 1-5, (2000): 9 16 nationalism, who in his writing “Nationalism” (1917) elaborated his ideas about Indian nationalism and its cosmopolitan kind. Tagore says, the goal of human history should neither be the neutral indefinability of cosmopolitanism, nor the aggressive narcissistic way of nation-worship.12
Hayes, Kohn and their companion historians believed on historical novelty of nationalism and initiated exploring the operational settings that gave birth to it. Further the chapter defines how, as Hayes states, contemporary nationalism demonstrated itself in five kinds, i.e. Humanitarian Nationalism, Jacobian Nationalism, Traditional Nationalism, Liberal Nationalism, and Integral Nationalism. While to Kohn nationalism is as a state and act of ‘mind’ or ‘consciousness’, which has become widespread after the French Revolution.13
E. H. Carr (1892-1982) categorizes modern history of nation into three periods. The first period contains “medieval unity of empire and church”, which was terminated by the second period, i.e. French Revolution.’ Carr labels the third period after 1870 till 1939, which can be marked as the period of “the catastrophic growth of nationalism”.14 Smith thinks a society should keep on restructuring its socio-political structures, for this it is essential to come across several internal crises that help its restructuring.15 Elie Kedourie (1926-1992) viewed “the only legitimate type of government is national self-government”.16 According to the Anthropological lens of Ernest Gellner (1925 –1995) nationalism is a function of modernity, which has relations with modernity instead of past eras.17 Umut Ozkirimli (1972 Turkey) sees it as a ‘rediscovery’ of nationalism as the Cold War ended; to him despite several critical aspects of nationalism there is a significance of national harmonies and unanimities.18
12 Rabindranath Tagore, Nationalism in India, (Macmillan, 1917), 15 13 Umut Ozkirimli, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 35 14 Edward Hallett Carr, Nationalism and After, (London: Macmillan, 1945), 27 15 Anthony. D. Smith, Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era, (Polity Press, 1996), 183 16 Kedourie, Elie. Nationalism, Oxford:( Blackwell, 1994), 1 17 Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism. (Blackwell Publishing, 2006), XX 18 Ozkirimli, Theoroes of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, 1 17
This chapter also discusses the whole argument with mention of Pakistan, where the miscellaneous cultural, ethnic or political identities have been mechanically united. If that unity was created without pressure and challenging the distinct identities of the nations that constituted federation of the country, the fate of the country would have been like that of Switzerland. The key argument of this chapter bases itself partially on signifying the class question by resolving ethnic conflicts. It proposes that Pakistan’s problem of identity can be fixed through the theories of Austro Marxists like Bauer (1881-1938) and Karl Renner (1870- 1950) who, in case of Austro-Hungarian Empire, repudiated withdrawal of its component races and suggested self-rule to be allowed to them by making them independent units within the empire. Based on this model this chapter offers the Bauer and Renner standard to be seen as one of the options, to constitute a united and sovereign public body19 that will allow the constituent units and the federal state divide the subjects.20
It also highlights Hobsbawn’s idea of bankruptcy of certain historians whom he calls “missionary historians” who promote particular nationalism of their own group identity.
Umut Ozkirimli He adds one more point to it that genuine and false nationalisms should be clearly distinguished. “Some historians have been ‘promoting particular nationalism— usually their own—and debunking others’ is widely recognized”21
This chapter finally, with the examples from history concludes that such cooperation among the diversities can be designed through cosmopolitanism. The subsequent chapter deliberates upon cosmopolitanism as well as cosmopolitan nationalism.
The second chapter “Nature of Cosmopolitan Nationalism & its Corresponding Manifestations” explores how the bases for cosmopolitan nationalism were formed. First
19 E. J. Nimni, Introduction for the English Reading Audience, in O. Bauer, The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), xv-xiv. 20 Stargardt, Nicholas. Origin of the Constructivist Theory of the Nation. In S. Periwa ed. Notions of Nationalism, Budapest, (Central European University Press, 1995), 83-105. 21 Ozkirimli, Theoroes of Nationalism: A Criticial Introduction, 28 18 part of the chapter includes thorough exploration of the definition of cosmopolitanism that also contains how this Greek word has been varyingly defined. It also tells how the notion of cosmopolitanism buttresses on the entire human population on the planet Earth to be citizen of a single human community. Consequently, cosmopolitanism as a political concept may be understood as with or without state. But doctrinally, cosmopolitanism’s association with state is inevitable.
This chapter highlights features of the debate by presenting the merits and demerits of cosmopolitanism and deliberates upon the different thoughts to analyze the subject. It simultaneously is drawn as a human-friendly ideal that can potentially make local ethnic and a political identity apprehensive in despotic states as happened in case of Pakistan. The provinces that formed federation of Pakistan, could have had the best instances of cosmopolitan nationalism if the rudimentary values and legitimacies were likewise treated similarly as done in the success stories of federations all over the world, such as in Germany, Switzerland, and Canada etc.
Subsequent to that, this chapter highlights difference between nationalism and cosmopolitanism along with the several kinds of both of the notions. It also debates how one can be at a time nationalist as well as cosmopolitan. Here the chapter throws light on Pakistan, which has suffered division of the country in 1971 and continuous political turmoil to this date due to identity question, which was left unresolved since the inception of the country.
The critique on cosmopolitanism is also majorly associated with the impact of speedily globalizing world. The opponents of cosmopolitanism criticize on the beyond-border businesses or migrations, which spread flow of weapons and diseases, that ultimately not only cause demographic changes but modify socio-political and economic thought and practice of the society. Such changes bring overnight transformations in the local cultures and practices. Therefore, the main liability on the cosmopolitanism is that it dilutes state 19 autonomy and globalizes citizenship, which eventually weakens national identities as viewed by Eckersley.22
The Third Chapter of the thesis is “Narratives of Nationalist Politics in Sindh— a Research Study in Historical Perspective”, which is an academic endeavor to discover the prospects of nonviolent and diplomatic persistence of the multi-classed and socially-diversified society of Sindh. Is pluralism in Sindh a conceivable idea? What are the challenges to the possibility of pluralism in Sindh? This chapter at the end responds to this question.
This chapter investigates into the evaluation of Sindh’s patriotic chronicles in its political history to investigate the research-based answer to the aforesaid inquiry. Besides that, the existing political state of affairs of Sindh have also been discoursed appropriately in its chronological order and historic standpoint. Above and beyond an effort has also been made to reveal the point of view of Sindh at the global level in the light of opinions and doctrines of those political theorists and philosophers who have contributed to the subject of pro- autonomy politics.
Enormous text has been printed on national politics of Sindh, of which critical appraisal from various proportions is required. Precisely there is requirement of writing on not only its developments and backgrounds but also scrutinizing the nationalist struggles, political trends and notions in the light of the ideologies of the world’s nationalist politics.
No doubt Sindhi nationalist politics can draw analogies with the contemporary theories on nationalism and ground realities of the several countries of the world. In order to make the philosophers, theoreticians and researchers (working on nationalism) comprehend Sindh’s case, it is essential to distinguish it firstly from the perception of historic certainties, and moreover, from the global doctrines and their existing models as well.
22 Eckersley. “From Cosmopolitan Nationalism to Cosmopolitan Democracy”, 675 20
This chapter clarifies that by no means should it be assumed that the inhabitants of Sindh, who speak languages other than that of the natives (Urdu Speaking, Punjabis, Pashtuns and Baloch), should categorically be professed as strangers, or Sindhis may be presented as xenophobes or national narcissists. Nevertheless, this research appeals for responsiveness to the possibility of multi-national and multi-racial identity of Sindh to become national beauty. Yet there is an essential condition to be right in place that global rules and regulations are already applied in the world states, while having analogous situation to Pakistan, those should be replicated here as well.
Since this thesis is the first study of its kind about the question of modern citizenship and nationality in Pakistan with focus on Sindh, based on its national concept or multiracial nationalism, it can be understood as a proposal of an all-inclusive nationalism of Sindh.
The accounts of Sindhi nationalism can be divided into three eras. Recounting that outline the nationalist scheme of Sindh will be befittingly studied. This chapter gives detailed overview of the three epochs of Sindhi nationalism, which include the first Epoch: 1906-1936 (Struggle for Separation of Sindh from Bombay); second Epoch: 1937-1947 (that covers Pre- Partition period); while the third Epoch: 1947-2017 (discusses the dispute for the national survival, share of resources and prerogative of long-lasting majority).
The fourth chapter “Relation between cosmopolitan nationalism and ethnocentric nationalism: Understanding Pakistan’s case” explores the case of Pakistan through the lens of above-mentioned investigations in the previous chapters of the thesis. It discusses that in the cosmopolitan nationality the fundamentals of cultural or racial nationalism are not only dissimilar from each other but to some degree are opposing to each other also. Ethnic nationalism means a group of people that is historically living on a territory having identical language, and has similar ethnic relation. While the foundations of cosmopolitan nationalism do not require the subjects to be analogous in color, ethnicity or culture; it may offer shared political comforts based on nationality. 21
This chapter narrates with supporting references that why it was so complex for the leaders of Pakistan to create unity among the nationalities after the partition? The 1971 tragedy of separation of East Pakistan (Bangladesh now) endorses upon it being the sturdy consequence of that failure in forming unity. Likewise, is the reality of Sindh and Balochistan also that in both of the provinces there triggered the ethnic conflict between native Sindhis and migrants, and Baloch renaissance against the military in 1970s correspondingly. This chapter articulates that in Punjab political scenario was different. Because Punjabis being the great beneficiaries of the strongholds in the jobs of military and bureaucracy did not endorse upon Punjabi to be their national or official language, instead they adopted Urdu as a national language, while in other provinces’ strong reactions took place that ultimately determined the fate and shape of the country.
Hence in nutshell, this chapter defines how the identity crises in Pakistan initiated by the indifference of the leaders of Pakistan, which was intentionally fostered against the cultural identities and right to autonomy of the nation states that jointly constituted the state named Pakistan.
This chapter also applauds Jinnah‘s speech of August 11, 1947 in which he addressed to the new-born constituent assembly. In that historical speech, he declared that religion was not business of the state, while people with different religious identities would associate with each other as citizens of a sovereign country; religion would be their private matter, despite its being a Muslim state, which endorses basic Islamic values, i.e. peace, harmony and coexistence.
It may (or may not) develop an alternative centre of allegiance among the people, who strive for recognition as a nation and struggle to form its own distinct nation-state. It should also be recognized that mere cultural autonomy is meaningless unless it is accompanied by a corresponding share in economic and political power, that is, along with the corresponding economic and political rights.23
23 Kamat, Anant Raoji. “Ethno-Linguistic Issues in Indian Federal Context”, Economic and Political Weekly 15 no.24/25 (June, 1980): 1061 22
The fifth chapter “Class Perspectives on Nationalism”, presents final thesis vis-a-vis class perception. It investigates the models of nationalism, which, discourse on nationalism in class-based societies where diversified cultural identities coexist. This research specifically determines to enhance the discourses of nationalism in Sindh province of Pakistan from the standpoint of class question—the province that is the miscellany of unique cultural constituents.
This chapter finally supports its thesis with the socialist political narrative of Mr. Rasool Bakhsh Palijo, a Marxist politician from Sindh, Pakistan, that he deliberates upon in his book “the Dawn Will Rise”.24 Mr. Palijo offers a permanent answer to the problems of Sindh by reforming its society afresh with the help of class struggle. The proposition of Mr. Palijo is judiciously used here after connecting it with many nationalistic accounts in the world established in the viewpoint of class in 19th and 20th centuries to-date.
24 Rasool Bakhsh Palijo, “Subuh Thindo”, (Sardar Printing Press, 1978), 158 23
Chapter 1 Philosophy of Nationalism: Exploring History
24
This chapter offers a comprehensive account of history of theories of nationalism, and political evolution of nationalism from 18th century to this date.
First of all, this chapter succinctly deliberates upon the rise and evolution of the theories of nationalism that emerged in the 18th century Europe after the French Revolution when the romanticism of being one nation arose among the masses of France. The 1789 French Revolution did not only prepare base for modern democracy, but it also pioneered the idea of modern politico-national sentiment. In 19th century, it not only expanded as a modern political ideology, but in the different nations of Europe this idea and its applied forms reached zenith. That is the reason the 19th century is defined as the century of the rise of nationhood in modern Europe. From 18th to 20th centuries the ideology of nationhood and its practical forms have incessantly evolved and transformed, while the theoretical part of which is succinctly discussed in this paper.
These changes created avenues for the notional advancement of nationalism in history. The historical overview in this paper mentions thinkers from Rousseau to Earnest Gellner, and draws ideological support from the theorists like Umut Ozkirimly and Gellner for the case study of Pakistan (with focus on Sindh) as a plural society.
After an exhaustive investigation of both the evolution of theory of nationalism, and applied face of nationalism in the world politics from 18th century to-date, this paper looks into the processes, through which it has been transforming into cosmopolitanism or cosmopolitan nationalism in certain societies based on socio-cultural and political necessities. Accordingly, this paper based on a theoretical framework, draws analogies of the theories and practices of nationalism in history with the question of identity emerging in post-colonial societies with focus on Pakistan in general, and Sindh in particular.
25
1.1 Philosophy of Nationalism: Exploring History
1.1 a. Evolution of the Philosophy of Nationalism: Emergence of Nationhood The concept of nationhood emerged in Europe in 18th century after the French Revolution when the desire of being one nation arose amongst the masses of France. Henceforth it can be derived that the 1789 French Revolution did not only formulate the underpinnings for modern democracy, but it also pioneered the idea of modern political nationalism. That, in 19th century, it not only fostered as a modern political ideology, but in the different nations of Europe this idea and its practical forms reached pinnacle. That is the reason 19th century is well-defined as the century of rise of nationhood in modern Europe.
From 18th to 20th centuries the ideology of nationhood and its applied methods have uninterruptedly evolved and transformed. In European society obliteration of feudalism, industrialization, modern capitalism & construction of urban professional society and the changing forms of ideological and practical forms of nationalism also helped the nationhood evolve. When societies transform, they refurbish their identity, structures, interests and political demeanor. The ideology of nation states arose in 19th century and developed in an applicable shape in 20th century after the Word Wars I & II.
The post-World War-II colonization added impetus to the already speedy evolution of nation states, henceforward numerous nation states came into being, not only in the Europe but in the Latin America, Africa and Asiatic societies also.
After colonization, among a number of small states in different continents, two new nation states emerged from the Sub-Continent India, i.e. India and Pakistan. My PhD thesis studies Pakistan as a case study with especial concentration on Sindh province.
In order to pinpoint workable way out to the question of identity and nationalism in a post- colonial society like that of Sindh, Pakistan, it is imperative to have a panoramic glance at the history of the theories of nationalism in the world. 26
The purpose of this study is to position the nationalistic argument of province of Sindh as a constituent unit of the Federation of Pakistan. However, before I dwell on the situation of Sindh I must go through various concepts, theories and ideologies on nationalism, in order to draw corresponding analogies with Sindh.
1.1 b. Evolution of Nationalism and its Theories:
There are a number of contrasting ideas on the emergence of nationalism world-wide. The ancient Hebrews, though based on a religion, can be called the earliest protagonists of nationalism, who believed that Jews were the superior and chosen people of God. Possibly it was also the earliest face of narcissism for one’s own identity. The initial forms of democracy in the ancient Greece also gives profounder glimpses of city states, and the people had loyalty to the state and a sense of pride for being part of state and political community. Homer, Greek poet, the way he glorifies Greeks in his Odyssey that also draws unique example of the Greeks to be an idolized civilization. Although in the Roman Empire the Christian Church also tried to create sense of a united religious identity for them, class disparities, slavery and extremely hegemonic role of Church and the emperors on public life could not let it happen.
Similarly, the Mughal Empire in the Sub-Continent in the early 16th century also was a prodigious specimen of Muslim rule in the India. From Sir Syed Ahmed Khan to Allama Iqbal the idea of being one nation developed and got a strong foothold, as the Muslims of Indo- Pak Sub-continent, who were a minority, regarded themselves different from the Hindu majority.
The appropriate treatise on nationalism began in Europe in the beginning of the 19th century. While the emergence of the academic study on nationalism is a 20th century phenomenon, whereas nationalism as a philosophy and a civil and political drive began at the end of the eighteenth century.25
25 Umut Ozkirimli, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 9 27
1.2 Definition of Nationalism According to the lexicographic meaning of nationalism, it is:
“A feeling that people have of being loyal to and proud of their country often with the belief that it is better and more important (for them) than other countries”. Or “A desire by a large group of people (such as people who share the same culture, history, language, or territory etc.) to form a separate and independent nation of their own”. 26
Or, ‘a people having some characteristics which go towards the making of a nation, and who are striving for a measure of political, economic and cultural autonomy.27
1.3 Is Nationalism Good or Bad? This is a very pertinent question, and vastly debated upon all over the world that is nationalism good or bad.
There is an enormous variance between the nationalism of the oppressed, and the same of the oppressing nations. The nationalism of oppressing nations always comes inexorably adjoined with violence and coercion, which resultantly, faces resistance by the oppressed nations or groups. We saw in history the merciless chapters of Nazism or Fascism in Germany and Italy respectively. The oppressors may treat nationalism “as an irrational idea” which drives unnecessarily “atavistic emotions” of the oppressed group. While there is no doubt in it that nationalism is a sentiment, which may potentially espouse good or bad forms.28
Anti-colonial movements around the World concreted the way for nationalism, which was emerging then in the form of national unity against colonization. The anti-colonial nationalism arose in the mid of 1860s when the “decolonization was in full flow”. There were two ways in which the anti-colonial nationalism was being understood: 1) if and when the imperialists left, the nationalism would become “a new form of civic nationalism, rather like
26 (Merriam Webster online dictionary. Accessed on June 19, 2015 at 9 pm at http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/nationalism) 27 Anant Raoji Kamat, “Ethno-Linguistic Issues in Indian Federal Context”, Economic and Political Weekly vol. 15 no.24/25 (June, 1980) p. 1061 28 Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism. (Blackwell Publishing, 2006), p. xix 28
American independence movements”.29 2) If independence was repudiated by the Communists, the nationalism would be labeled as a tool of the “oppressive Communist powers”. This is the way it was viewed in the “early 1950s of Korea, later when the USA replaced French in Indochina, or Vietnam”.30 Let’s have a glance at the philosophy behind the emergence of nationalism, the philosophy that preceded and may have contributed to giving shape to the budding nationalism in the contemporary times. However, rationally, it needs to be understood that what kind of legitimacy the nationalism of the oppressed nations can have if it has all the required ingredients of nationalism. The ingredients may include having common grounds such as historicity, culture, language, territory, and resources; all of these, or some of these are being exploited or abused by the oppressing nations, states or groups.
1.4 Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) The advance approach towards nationalism may be cosmopolitanism, which encompasses a diverse range of identities under a single unity. Jean-Jacques Rousseau believes that it is a unity that unites, irrespective of ethnic and religious diversities. Rousseau’s self- determination’s link with nationalism cannot be denied. His ideas of exchanging the selfish will for the “general will”, by which he meant saving people from ‘the possible tyranny of will by fellowmen’. To Rousseau the selfishness of natural man transforms into civility when he becomes one of the citizens in the larger community, in his words: ‘Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.31
Rousseau believed in political association that safeguarded people from the crudeness and selfishness of the others, when individual will is properly guarded (Barnard 1984: 246). In the Polish Convention 1772, Rousseau cherished the “virtue of citizens” and “their patriotic zeal”
29 Ozkirimli, 9. 30 Gellner, xix 31 Jean- Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, Trans. George Douglas Howard Cole, (1762) accessed on June 19, 2015 https://www.ucc.ie/archive/hdsp/Rousseau_contrat-social.pdf 29 to add passion to the commitment of the Poles. The virtue of being one citizen of a state and cherishing patriotism for the land would forge the Pole consciousness that would define them besides other people, and preclude them from being engrossed by the different peoples”. To him the patriotism for the fatherland should be instilled through education along with the milk of mother into the new-born child, which teaches the new-born love the “laws and liberty” of the land from birth to death.32
The above statements of Rousseau, if examined as a patriotic nationalism, would indicate to his support to the identity consciousness at grand level, which is a sentiment that associates a group with a bigger nation. This approach does not necessarily lead to the feeling of narcissism that appears in some cases of nationalism, which are actually based on the chauvinism against other nations.
I strongly believe that there should be another term for the oppression like Nazism and Fascisms instead of nationalism; because defining Nazism or fascism as a nationalism has earned bad image to the genuine nationalist movements of the oppressed nations, of which Pakistan is the best example.
In Polish Convention, Rousseau termed the “patriotic zeal” as the “virtue of citizens”, which meant he united the feeling of nationalism, patriotism, love for the laws and liberty in the category of morality, which he states to be instilled from childhood. Rousseau believes in the common consciousness of a mass living on a territory. It clearly shows that by this kind of patriotism he meant a single ethnicity, which sounded to be based more on territory than ethnicity—a territory that may be comprised of diversity of ethnic groups (as is the case of Pakistan). It also means that a sovereign country makes a nation; the people living in its bounds are to be distinguished from the people living in the bounds of other territory. It can be called territorial nationalism.
32 Ibid. 30
1.5 Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
German Philosopher Immanuel Kant had expertise on moral universalism. However, his moral and epistemological dualism was in-depth and comprehensive. Kant’s main argument is defined in his idea of separation of inner and external worlds, in which he disjointed morality from knowledge of phenomenal world that is full of contingencies; from knowledge or the world of appearance, the consequence of the compliance to a worldwide or universal law that is to be identified within ourselves”.33 There are three regulatory hypotheses of practical reason, for example, what is enlightenment is just the base of freedom of ideology that no one should oppress the other.
Kant builds his moral philosophy on these three regulatory principles, i.e. immortality, freedom and God. Kant’s moral philosophy is altruistic. His Categorical Imperative is based on this statement: “Two things fill me with awe and sublimity, the starry heavens above and the moral law within me”. The moral law that unites and individual with the others based on the universal morality. Kant’s article “What is Enlightenment” (1887) is relevant to nationalism. In this article, he draws a difference between the “public reason” and “private reason”. Man is not free in exercising public reason; he is free in exercising private reason. “Public reason” is related to the law, while the “private reason” is his own will to critically examine based on reason. That brings freedom. According to Kant public reason is fixed, it has to be followed, but if you do not like a law you can criticize it privately.
This was a ground-breaking definition of freedom. Kant equated ‘virtue’ with ‘free will’. On the other hand, neither freedom nor virtue depended on God’s commands. Hence the new formula: ‘the good will, which is the free will, is also the autonomous altruistic will’. This was revolutionary because the formula made the individual the centre and the sovereign of the universe, in a way it was never envisaged by the French revolutionaries or their intellectual
33 Elie Kedourie, Nationalism, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994), p. 14 31 precursors’; the ‘self-determination thus become the supreme political good”, which was of course the free will too.34
Accordingly, from Kantian perspective we understand that there can be collective good will, which must be similarly a free and autonomous will too.
1.6 Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803)
1.6 a. Significance of Language in Nationalism: German thinker Johann Gottfried Herder termed language as an inalienable right, and strongly bonded with a highly personal and inner subject. The significance of language to a nation has been a very precious subject in the academic field of nationalism (It played a significant role in Pakistan too. For example, the language issue caused severe damage to Pakistan’s unity, when on February 21, 1952 the students of the Dhaka Medical College and the University of Dhaka protested in favor of acknowledgement of Bangla language as one of the national languages of Pakistan (East Pakistan then). The state, disagreeing with the notion, ordered police to persecute the protesters; hence the police had opened fire on the protesting students causing death and casualties. UNESCO honored the day as International Mother Tongue Day since 2000). Gottfried Herder condemns depriving a nationality of its language as a fatal attack. Herder labeled robing a nationality of its language equal to degrading it; he said on the significance of language of any nation:
“Has a nationality anything more precious than the language of its fathers? In this language dwell its whole world of tradition, history, religion and principles of life, its whole hearth and soul. To rob a nationality of its language or to degrade it is to deprive it of its most precious possession”.35
To Herder a language is submerged in the cognitive process of any human; human beings think and express in their own language. Thoughts, dreams, intuition, creativity, entire
34 Ozkirimli, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, 11 35 Derek Heater, The Theory of Nationhood: A Platonic Symposium, Basingstoke, (Macmillan, 1998), 68-69 32 cognition is designed in the temperament of one’s own language. He terms language as “something internal” that helps people express their personal and “inner most thoughts and feelings”. He says the cultural ties connect members of a certain nationality, and the ties were “living energies (krafte) emanating from within”.36
He symbolizes a nationality as “a plant of nature” that has more branches, which are its very much part; to him a nation was more like a family that has diverse branches, therefore, he defines the “nation as extended family with one national character”.37 That is the reason with these characteristics Herder censures the oppression of one nation over the other. He says:
“Nothing is more obviously contrary to the purpose of political government that the unnatural enlargement of states, the wild mixing of various races and nationalities under one scepter. Such states are wholly devoid of inner life, and their component parts are connected through mechanical contrivances instead of bonds of sentiment”.38
As viewed by Heater, Herder has in his mind the tradition of ancient Hebrew culture who believed in “one people” despite their tribal and institutional divisions; where they benefit from a range of “autonomous institutions to serve these interests.”.39
Hence Herder focuses more on celebrating cultural diversity instead of supporting “exclusionary nationalism”. For unification of Germans he believes the unity of Prussians with rest of the Germans is natural, while unity of Germans with other European nations would be artificial.40 He denies supremacy of one nation over the other and says:
‘No nationality has been solely designated by God as the chosen people of the earth; above all we must seek the truth and cultivate the garden of the common good’.41
36 F. M. Bernard, “National Culture and Political Legitimacy: Herder and Rousseau”, Journal of History of Ideas. Vol. XLIV no. 2 (1983): 242-3 37 Heater, The Theory of Nationhood: A Platonic Symposium, Basingstoke, 79 38 Ibid, 79 39 Bernard, 246-7 40 Heater, 79 41 Ibid,108 33
The above-mentioned thinkers’ point of view is inclined towards an idea of collective nationhood that is inclusive of diversity, and encompasses various groups under one patriotic disposition.
1.7 Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814)
Similarly, Kant’s disciple Johann Gottlieb Fichte in his speech delivered during 1807-1808, addresses the German Nation. It was the time when Prussia lost Battle of Jena to France in 1806. He says the people of “common soil” and “similar sentiments and resolutions” should join hands to form a collective identity, so that a united, and “unceasing flame of patriotic disposition may be kindled, which will spread over the whole soil of the fatherland to its utmost boundaries”.42 Now there is a vast difference between uniting nations based on certain concrete commonalities, and uniting them forcibly under the identity that is contrary to theirs’; both kinds form nationalism of willful inclusiveness or oppressive inclusiveness.
Fichte further argues vis-à-vis language that speaking similar language joins people to “each other by a multitude of invisible bonds by nature herself, long before any human arts begins”. He believed that having a separate language meant a separate nation as well, which has: “the right to take independent charge of its affairs and to govern itself…. Where a people has ceased to govern itself, it is equally bound to give up its language and to coalesce with conquerors”.43
1.8 Fredrick Schlegel (1772-1829)
Fredrick Schlegel also rejected the idea of fusing many nations together under one identity; he said that each human race “has its peculiar character, and (it) governs itself by its peculiar
42 Ibid, 111 43 Ibid, 69 34 laws, habits and customs” hence those should never be bound together, as each of them is “unconditionally its own master”.44
The concept of being one’s own master was also purported in a different way by abbe Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes in his book entitled “What is the Third Estate?” In this book he indicates to the ancient France where parliament was comprised of three tiers, the First Estate represented the noble class; the Second Estate was of the clergy, while the Third Estate comprised of everyone else. He rejects the rights and privileges allowed to the advantaged or upper classes; he debated that members of any “nation are citizens, hence equal before the law”.
He says that by subtracting the privileges of the upper classes would enrich nations instead of weakening them. He condemned that how the Third Estate was “fettered and oppressed”. He does a bold claim stating that since the Third Estate has everyone else (common people), hence it has every ingredient that makes it a nation, and “everyone outside the Third Estate cannot be considered to be a member of the Nation.45 It was an acknowledgement to the oppressed class who was disregarded as unimportant/less worthy by the so-called nobility of the era.
1.9 Marx (1818-83) and Engels (1820-95)
SSimilarly, Marx and Engles can be explored for how they looked at the national question. There has been interesting debate among the scholars on Marx and Engles’ views on nationalism. For example, according to Munck, the writers who try to prove a “coherent Marxist approach” on nationalism, for them it is necessary to form such coherent approach based on the Marxist scholars’ methodology on this subject.46 While Benner, picking various
44 Hans Kohn, “Romanticism and the Rise of German Nationalism”, The Review of Politics vol. 12 no. 4 (1950): p. 443-72 45 Ozkirimli, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, 16 46 Ronaldo Munck, The Difficult Dialogue: Marxism and Nationalism, (Zed Books, 1986), 168 35 components of their arguments, endorses that they somehow addressed the national question47
Besides that, Ozkirimli also supports the position that is close to both Benner and Munck and says, not necessarily ‘a “theory” of nationalism as such’, but they have discussed the question of nationhood within their domain.48
In my opinion, class question would not be resolved unless internal identity and inter-nation conflicts are resolved. In the Communist Manifesto (1848) both Marx and Engels write about how the bourgeoisie gives the global market and its production and consumption a cosmopolitan nature the secluded locality of any nation is now having universality into it by managing it merge in every direction, which ultimately affects intellectual production as well, making it global instead of their belonging to their own culture. According to the Communist Manifesto:
“The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one- sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature”49
Munck denies about the ambiguity in Marx and Engles’ views on national question; according to him they clearly stated that the proletariat first of all “become the leading class (‘national class’ in the first German edition) in their nation; only then can they work to diminish national antagonism. Marx and Engles clearly said that ‘the proletariat of each country must, of course, settle matters with its own bourgeoisie’50 In saying this, Munck concludes, Marx and Engels do not betray their internationalism’.51
47 Erica Benner, Really Existing Nationalism: A Post-Communist View from Marx and Engles, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995). 48 Ozkirimli, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, 17 49 Karl Marx, 2014, Communist Manifesto 1948, London, Chiron Academic Press 50 Ibid. 51 Ozkirimli, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, 18 36
To Marx and Engles economic and social development was also important for people to become nation, besides “a common language and traditions, or geographical and historical homogeneity”. Their tolerance of capitalist development as compared to the other ingredients of nationhood was quite strong as they wanted Marxism to overcome it one day. They called Germany, as compared to Scandinavian nations, “more revolutionary and progressive” because she reached “higher level of capitalist development”.52
Besides that, as endorsed by Munck their support to the Slave (slavery) from the Ottoman Empire during the Crimean War (1853-6). They also gave a very obvious point of view on Irish question. They thought that for England to reach on revolutionary path, she will have to resolve the Irish question53 (Munck 1986: 15). ‘The separation and independence of Ireland from England was not only vital step of Irish development but was also essential for the British people since “A nation that oppresses another, forges its own chains”.54
1.10 Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919)
Rosa Luxemburg did not believe in the existence of sociopolitical homogeneity of a nation; according to her there existed “within each nation classes antagonistic interests and rights’55 (Luxemburg cited in Forman 1998: 89). She opposed independence of Poland during the “conflict between the Polish Socialist Party (PPS) and the Social Democratic Party of the Kingdom of Poland (SDKP; later known as the Social Democratic Party of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania, SDKPL)”. Criticizing the pro-independence position of PPS as ‘social patriotic’, Luxemburg opposed the liberation of Poland on the grounds that the future of Polish economic development lay within Russia”56
52 Ibid. 53 Munck, 15 54 Emphraim J. Nimni, Marxism and Nationalism: Theoretical Origins of a Political Crisis, (London: Pluto Press, 1991), 33 55 Michael Forman, Nationalism and the International Labor Movement: The Idea of the Nation in Socialist and Anarchist Theory, University Park, Pennsylvania, (The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998). 56 Munck, 15 37
That also meant that from the perspective of Socialism if Poland gets separated it would be regress instead of progress and obstruct the evolution of Capitalism in Poland57
She viewed national state as bourgeois mindset that thrives on it. She rather termed the phrase “right of nations” as a “metaphysical cliché”, or as utopian as the “right of every man to eat from gold plates proclaimed by the writer Cherneshvsky”,58 meaning that it has no practical value. She saw socialism and “national self-determination” totally in inverse proposition in any social conditions be that “war or peace” 59
Luxemburg thought that class conflict would solve every national question, I also thought it was a blunder on the part of Luxemburg to not consider ethnic and other national dynamics; besides that, Luxemburg’s position was “anti-nationalist, not anti-nationality” She also showed a soft corner for Europe’s African colonization, poverty and human suffering but she thought it was different than being categorized based on nationality60
Luxemburg’s position specifies lack of the precedence of exact question of nationalism rising in that era, which emerged with a boom in the post-World War-II scenario. As I mentioned above the definition of the meaning and spirit of the term “nationalism” has been eroded after the fascist and Nazist trends. Nationalism comes conjoined with Nazism or Fascism as if. It would be a big setback to be faced by the oppressed nations, as when they raise the question of their national identity, it must not be assumed akin to national oppression, which it is not.
1.11 Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924)
57 Ozkirimli, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, 20 58 Micheal Lowy, Fatherland or Mother Earth? Essays on the National Question. (London: Pluto, 1998). 59 Ozkirimli, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, 20 60 Rosa Luxemburg, The Letters of Rosa Luxemburg ed. S. E. Bronner, Boulder: Westview Press, 1978. 38
Lenin viewed national question differently than Luxemburg, because according to him the ideal conditions “for the development of capitalism are undoubtedly provided by the national state”.61 Lenin suggests that when oppressed nation’s bourgeoisie is busy in fighting the enemy, we have to support it. But we have to be against if the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation endorses his bourgeois nationalism. In his views, “We fight against the privileges and violence of the oppressor nation”.62 To him standing in support of the “national self-determination” is highly purposeful; he viewed denial to that may end up the socialists to be exploited by “the bourgeoisie, feudal landlords and the oppressor nation if they fail to support the right to national self- determination”.
National demands have to be secondary vis-à-vis class struggle and its interests.63 However, in my view those can stay secondary only when the class struggle is ripe, internal crises among the nations and ethnicities are resolved, class-identity is the actual term of reference among them instead of different ethno-religious identities. According to Lenin: ‘National demands are always subordinated to the interests of class struggle, and that is why “the proletariat confines itself, so to speak, to the negative demand for recognition of the right to self-self-determination, without giving any guarantees to any nation, and without undertaking to give anything at the expense of another nation” bourgeois nationalism, we stand against. We fight against the privileges and violence of the oppressor nation’.64
Seeing through the lens of Lenin’s views on his theory of imperialism (Theories of Economic Transformation in Chapter 4), and agreeing to it that “nationalism is intensified in the era of imperialist expansionism”.65 “To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the
61 Ozkirimli, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, 21 62 Ibid 63 Ibid, 21 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid. 39
church, and the monarch, against national oppression, etc. – imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution”.66
However, all of these views on nationalism by Marxism does not provide clear and methodical solution to the issue of nationalism, but “Just because Marx and Engels did not take nationalism in a methodical/and organized way, it would be odd to exclude their brief contribution to nationalism”.67 And in my view the brief contributions of Marxists to nationalism are quite vital, they are communicated quite strongly that they carry clear guidance; it does not matter if the details are not provided to those brief statements.
Austro-Marxists view nationalism as a kind of false consciousness, and a class ideology. While the Marxists like Renner and Bauer believed in the truth value of nationalism, which was built on the existence of national culture accompanying language68 (Breuilly in Gellner 2006: Xvi). They rather termed nationalism as a “fictive idea about difference and others regarded it as a sentiment expressing real difference”.69 They supported “national self-determination”, which did not necessarily require establishing “independent nation-states”. Renner and Bauer clearly articulate their understanding of diversity of nations joining socialism. All they wanted was to protect and respect national differences with commitment to internationalism. They suggest, as explained by Ozkirimli:
For Bauer, the attempt to impose one species of socialism, ‘which is itself the product of a particular national history, of particular national characteristics’, on workers’ movements ‘with entirely different histories, entirely different characteristics’, is utopian. Rather, the international, socialist movement must take the national differentiation of methods of struggle and ideologies within its ranks into account and teach its nationally differentiated troops to mobilize their efforts in the service of common goals. After all, ‘it is not the leveling of national differences, but the
66 Nimni, Marxism and Nationalism: Theoretical Origins of a Political Crisis, 83 67 Ozkirimli, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, 11 68 Gellner, xvi 69 Ibid, xvii 40
promoting of international unity within national diversity that can and must be task of the International’.70
According to Bauer the national is ‘a community of character that grows out of a community of destiny rather than from a mere similarity of destiny’. This also points to the significance of language for a nation, as stated by Bauer that ‘it is with the people I stand in closest communication with that I create a common language’.71
There comes the stage “in which a ‘cultural community’ bridging the gap between the linguistic and national communities is created. Here, the focus is on the development of a ‘high culture’ and with it a ‘high language’ above all spoken dialects. On the other hand, the most important factor in the transition from a cultural community to a nation is ‘sentiment’, a sense of the community’s own shared destiny. For Bauer, commonality of destiny is at least as important as commonality of past, hence his definition of the nation as, above all, a ‘community of fate”72
‘Only socialism could make the nation truly autonomous, because socialism was synonymous with acquisition of full membership on the part of the masses’.73 According to Forman, this leads to a significant break with the views of Lenin and Luxemburg who both saw nationalism, in their own ways, as an ideological tool of national bourgeoisies. For Bauer, on the other hand, nationalism is not reducible to bourgeois imperatives, and calls for a different analysis and different strategies”74
1.12 Joseph Stalin (1879-1953)
Iosif Vissarionovich Djugashvili, later to be known as Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), viewed it very simply (without understanding the complications caused by the World War II) that ‘a
70 Ozkirimli, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, 22 71 Otto Bauer, ‘The Nation’, quoted in G. Balakrishnan (ed.), Mapping the Nation, (London: Verso, 1996), 52. 72 Nicholas Stargardt, Origin of the Constructivist Theory of the Nation. In S. Periwa (ed.). Notions of Nationalism, Budapest, (Central European University Press, 1995), 83-105. See also Beur, 52 73 Forman, 102 74 Ibid. 41 nation is a historically evolved stable community arising on the foundation of a common language, territory, economic life and psychological make-up manifested in the community of culture”.75
Moreover, the nation to him is “a historical category” that belongs to a certain era, which calls the “epoch of rising capitalism”. Indicating to the case of Western Europe cites that the amalgamation of people in nations began along with the abolition of feudalism and progress of capitalism:
“The British, French, Germans, Italians and others formed themselves into nations at the time of the victorious advance of capitalism and its triumph over feudal disunity”.76
Both Lenin and Stalin had parallels and differences on the national question. By the right to self-determination Stalin meant that only the nation itself has the right to determine its destiny, that no one has ‘the right to forcibly interfere in the life of a nation, to destroy its schools and other institutions, to violate its habits and customs, to repress its language, or curtail its rights’.77 Besides national sovereignty self-determination is also a strong way to express this right:
“Self-determination means that a nation can arrange its life according to its will. It has the right to arrange its life on the basis of autonomy. It has the right to enter into federal relations with other nations. It has the right to complete secessions. Nations are sovereign and all nations are equal rights”78
The sustenance of socialism in a country like ex-Soviet Union where diverse identities were struggling to coexist hugely depended upon the strong federalism and autonomy under the official nationalities program. The program aimed to create the conditions that would lead to the peaceful coexistence of a variety of nations within a single proletarian state. This
75 Heater, 64 76 Ibid. 77 Forman, 129 78 Ibid 42 setting was capable to eradicate the incongruities between diverse national groups, “where the Soviet Union would side with the nations oppressed by the West”79 (Forman 1998: 133- 7).
It is generally observed that Socialism’s not doing away with anti-national prejudice, as writes Avineri, made it hard for her to “meet the challenges of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries”. In this blindness and in a very profound sense, Marxism shares this poverty with its rival, classical liberalism’.80
1.13 John Stuart Mill (1806-73)
John Stuart Mill was the first liberal thinker who got engaged with the problems posed by nationalism. Mill articulates his version of nationality or nationalism very simply, he says that ‘A portion of mankind may be said to constitute a nationality if they are united among themselves by common sympathies which do not exist between them and any others— which make them cooperate with each other more willingly than with other people, desire to be under the same government, and desire that it should be government by themselves or a portion of themselves exclusively.81
According to Mill a variety of causes may result into the sentiment of nationality, such as “race, descent, shared language and religion”; but above all, it is the ‘identity of political antecedents: the possession of national history, pleasure and regret, connected with the same incidents in the past’ that creates a sense of nationality.82
1.14 Lord Acton (1834-1902)
79 Ibid, 133-7 80 Shlomo Avineri, “Marxism and Nationalism”, Journal of Contemporary History 26 no. ¾ (1991): 654 81 Ozkirimli, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, 25 82 Georgios Varouxakis, Mill’s Theory of Nationality and Nationalism. Quoted in Leoussi, Athena S. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Nationalism, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers. 2001: 178-82 43
Lord Acton believes that individual freedom is better maintained in a multinational state. ‘Inferior races are raised by living in political union with the races that are intellectually superior. Exhausted and decaying nations are revived by the contract of a younger vitality.’ In that sense, the greatest enemy of the rights of nationality is in fact the modern theory of nationality, which makes the state and the nation commensurate with each other. He concludes:
“If we take the establishment of liberty for the realization of moral duties to be the end of civil society, we must conclude that those states are substantially the most perfect which, like the British and Austrian Empires, include various nationalities without oppressing them. Those in which no mixture of races has occurred are imperfect; and those in which its effects have disappeared are decrepit. The theory of nationality, therefore, is a retrograde step in history”.83
1.15 Emile Durkheim (1858-1917)
Durkheim views the nationality as a ‘group of human beings, who for ethnical or perhaps merely for historical reasons desire to live under the same laws, and to form a single state’ 84 ‘Patriotism’, on the other hand, designates ‘the ideas and feelings as a whole which bind the individual to a certain State’. Durkheim is keen to stress that these ideas and feelings are of a particular kind; patriotism joins the individual to the political society ‘seen from a certain viewpoint’, ‘from the affective angle’. Hence a political organization can exist without patriotism. Finland belongs to the Russian State, says Durkheim, ‘but does a Russian patriotism exist among the Finns?’85
83 Ozkirimli, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, 26 84 M. M.Mitchell, ‘Emile Durkheim and the Philosophy of Nationalism’, Political Science Quarterly 46 no.1 (1931): 87-106 85 Ibid, 27 44
Durkheim emphasizes upon religion as a moral community and his belief that “there is something eternal in religion”, he meant that societies ‘reaffirm and renew themselves periodically through collective rites and ceremonies’.86
“The second influential aspect of Durkheim’s work is his analysis of the transition from ‘mechanical’ to ‘organic’ solidarity. Essentially, Durkheim argued that traditions are the influence of the conscience collective (similarity of beliefs and sentiments in a community) decline, along with impulsive forces, such as affinity of blood, attachment to the same soil, ancestral worship and community of habits”.87
1.16 Max Weber (1864-1920)
For Weber, the concept of ‘nation’ “cannot be defined unambiguously”: ‘It certainly cannot be stated in terms of empirical qualities common to those who count as members of the nation. In the sense of those using the term at a given time, the concept undoubtedly means, above all, that one may exact from certain groups of men a specific sentiment of solidarity in the face of other groups. Thus, the concept belongs in the sphere of values’. 88
Weberian Definition of Nation: “One might well define the concept of nation in the following way: a nation is a community of sentiment, which would adequately manifest itself in a state of its own; hence, a nation is a community which normally tends to produce a state of its own”89
1.17 Historian’s bankruptcy
“Some historians have been ‘promoting particular nationalism-usually their own- and debunking others is widely recognized”90
86 Anthony. D. Smith, Nationalism and Modernism: A Critical Survey of Recent Theories of Nations and Nationalism, (Routledge, 1998). 87 Ozkirimli, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, 27-28 88 Max Weber, ‘The Nation’, (1948). In J. Hutchinson and A. D. Smith (eds.), Nationalism: Critical Concepts in Political Science, 5 Volumes, London, and New York: Routledge, 7 89 Ibid, 8 90 Smith, 28 45
‘Missionary historians’ have often ‘unearthed’ – in most cases – ‘created’ – the evidence which testifies to their nation’s perennial existence, or ‘rediscovered’ – in most cases ‘invented’ – the traditions, myths, symbols and rituals which go in to the making of national cultures. In the words of Hobsbawn, ‘historians are to nationalism what poppy-growers in Pakistan are to heroin addicts: we supply the essential raw material for the market.’91 In the nineteenth-century historians, such as, Jules Michelet, Nicolae Lorga, Heinrich von Treitscheke, Frantisek Palacky, Konstantinos Paparrigopulos Eoin MacNeill, among numerous others, ‘who were involved in the cultural and political regeneration of their respective nations”.92
According to the French historian Ernest Renan (1823-92) the modern nation ‘is a historical creation brought about by the convergence of many facts. Renan rejects the popular conceptions that define nations in terms of objective characteristics such as race, language, or religion, and asks:
“How is it that Switzerland, which has three languages, two religions, and three or four races, is a nation, when Tuscany, which is so homogeneous, is not one? Why is Austria a state and not a nation? In what ways does the principle of nationality differ from that of races”93
Unnatural nations, who do not have common history can emerge as a nation, like in Switzerland, which has emerged as successful polity, provided it becomes a federal state in true sense, or as in Belgium, where conflicts are resolved by the accommodating federal state. ‘A nation is … a large-scale solidarity, constituted by the feeling of the sacrifices that one has made in the past and of those that one is prepared to make in the future. It presupposes a past; it is summarized, however, in the present by a tangible fact, namely, consent, the
91 Ozkirimli, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, 28 92 Ibid, 29 93Ernest Renan, ‘What is a Nation?’. Quoted in Homi K. Bhabha (ed.).” Nation and Narration”, London: Routledge, vol. 8 no.22 (1990), 12 46 clearly expressed desire to continue a common life. A nation’s existence is, if you will pardon the metaphor, a daily plebiscite, just as an individual’s existence is a perpetual affirmation of life94 Ozkirimli says, 1) 18th n 19th century debate on nationalism does not qualify to be theories on nationalism. 2) 18th n 19th century liberal, conservative n Marxist thinkers have bequeathed important insights that enrich our understanding of nationalism. 3) Contemporary theorists of nationalism have been influenced by the broader writings of these thinkers, on issues that are only indirectly related to nationalism. In short, the contemporary theoretical debate on nationalism did not arise ex nihio.95
1.18 20th century thinkers on nationalism (1915-1945)
Viewing Western and Eastern nationalism Ozkirimli provides interesting view that the Western nationalism rose in the national states of France, Britain and the United States, “The drive to liberalize and democratize these states appealed to the nation as a community of citizens”. While the Eastern nationalism was formed within sub- or multinational states and in its driver for the national independence appealed to the nation as an ethnic or language group. One can see how the distinction worked in 1944, pitting the civic nationalism of Britain and the USA against the ethnic nationalism of Germany, Italy and Japan96
1.19. Tagore, R. N.
We cannot ignore the cosmopolitan approach of Tagore S.R. (1917) on nationalism; according to him the difficulties a nation passes through shapes its history. He gives example of Scythians of earlier era in Asiatic history that solved the problem of the scarcity of their natural resources by converting their every age population into bands of robbers. So easiest paths are looked for, which are not the “truest paths” humans should choose97
94 Ibid, 12 95 Ozkirimli, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, 31 96 Gellner, xvii 97 Rabindranath Tagore. Nationalism in India, (Macmillan, 1917). 47
To Tagore humans, unlike animals, chose to use their faculties to confront the difficulties, instead of acting as “marauders” overrunning the planet. He viewed the fact of diversity of races in India to be the most crucial of the problems India faced98 His following words suit to the South Asian perspective of Nationalism, which highly fits to the political realities of Pakistan as well:
“Neither the colorless vagueness of cosmopolitanism, nor the fierce self-idolatry of nation-worship is the goal of human history. And India has been trying to accomplish her task through social regulations of differences, on the one hand, and the spiritual recognition of unity, on the other. She has made grave errors in setting up the boundary walls too rigidly between races, in perpetuating the results of inferiority in her classifications; often she has crippled her children’s minds and narrowed their lives in order to fit them in to social forms; but for centuries new experiments have been made and adjustments carried out”.99
1.20 Carleton J. H. Hayes, (1882 – 1964)
‘We can be sure that prior to the eighteenth-century A. D. it was not the general rule for civilized nationalities to strive zealously and successfully for political unity and independence, whereas it has been the general rule in the last century and a half. Universal mass-nationalism of this kind, at any rate, has no counterpart in earlier eras; it is peculiar to modern times’.100
While according to the American historian and diplomat Carleton J. H. Hayes “As we will see in more detail below, this was most evident in the typologies they developed to classify various forms of nationalism, which usually ended up being attempts at distinguishing morally defensible forms of nationalism from morally indefensible ones. These limitations notwithstanding, however, the early writings of the likes of Kohn and Hayes were the harbinger of a lively debate on nationalism.101
98 Ibid, 14 99 Ibid. 100 Carlton Joseph Huntley Hayes, The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism, (New York: Macmillan, 1931) 101 Ozkirimli,Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, 31-32 48
For Hayes, nationalism is ‘the paramount devotion of human beings to fairly large nationalities and the conscious founding of a political “nation” on linguistic and cultural nationality’.102 The central question that needs to be addressed, Hayes claims, is ‘what has given such a vogue to nationalism in modern times’. For much of recorded history, human beings have been loyal to their tribes, clans, cities, provinces, manors, guilds, or polyglot empires; nationalism is simply another expression of human sociality, not more natural or more latent than, say, tribalism or imperialism. What makes nationalism such a major force in the eighteenth century are ‘certain underlying tendencies’, the most important of which is the growth of a belief in the national state as the medium through which human progress and civilization is best achieved.103 According to Hayes, modern nationalism manifested itself in five different forms, i.e. Humanitarian Nationalism, Jacobian Nationalism, Traditional Nationalism, Liberal Nationalism, and Integral Nationalism.
First of the five forms of nationalism, according to Hayes, is Humanitarian Nationalism, and its advocates include Tory politician John Bolingbroke’s aristocratic form of nationalism, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s democratic nationalism, and finally Johann Gottfried von Herder who preferred culture to politics. Hayes called this nationalism as a desirable step in human progress as first of all it is based in natural law, it is instilled with enlightenment. “As the 18th century neared its end, humanitarian nationalism underwent an important transformation: ‘Democratic nationalism’ (Rousseau’s); became “Jacobin”, Aristocratic nationalism (John Bolingbroke’s) became “Traditional”; and nationalism which was neither democratic, nor aristocratic became “liberal”104
Jacobian Nationalism is based on Rousseau’s democratic nationalism, developed by revolutionary leaders to safeguard French Revolution. It had 4 characteristics in that war/rebellion period: relied on force in militarism to succeed; it became fanatically religious;
102 Hayes, 6 103 Ibid, 289-302 104 Ibid. 49 was imbued with the missionary zeal. Jacobin nationalism set the patterns for 20th century nationalisms—Italian fascism n German national socialism.
Traditional Nationalism is counter to Jacobin nationalism, Jocobin was democratic n revolutionary, while traditional was aristocratic and evolutionary. Exponents: Edmund Burke, Vicomte de Bonald and Friedrich von Schlegel. “It prevailed over its main rival, Jacobinism, in The Battle of Waterloo in 1815, but this victory was more apparent than real. In the long run, a mild form of Jacobinism was incorporated in the rising liberal nationalism. Traditional nationalism, on the other hand, continued to be expressed here and there throughout Europe; eventually vanishing into the integral nationalism of the 20th century”105
Liberal nationalism that spread from England to rest of the continent, stood between Jacobian and Traditional nationalism. Its chief exponent was Jeremy Bentheam who condemned war, believed in nationality to “the proper basis for state and government; however, he strongly believed in restricting the “scope and functions of government in all spheres of life”. According to Ozkirimli, “his teachings were appropriated in Germany (Wilhelm von Humboldt, Baron Heinrich vom Stein, Karl Thheodor Welcker), France (Frrancois Guizot, Victor Hugo, Jean Casimir-Perier) and in Italy” (Guiseppe Mazzini) 106 It believed the nationality to be a political component “under and independent constitutional government” which would ultimately conclude tyranny, nobility and religious effect “and assure to every citizen the broadest practicable exercise of personal liberty”107
Liberal nationalism survived the First World War; nonetheless its reason and awe-inspiring aims could have been triumphant if it had annihilated its rivals. “Hence in time its liberalism waned as its nationalism waxed, because it had to compete now with a new form of nationalism”.108 (Hayes 1931: 161-3)
105 Ibid, 42 106 Ozkirimli, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, 33 107 Hayes, 159 108 Ibid, 161-3 50
The chief protagonist of Integral Nationalism was Charles Maurras who viewed this kind of nationalism as ‘the exclusive pursuit of national policies, the absolute maintenance of national integrity and the steady increase of national power – for a nation declines when it loses its might’.109 . To an integral nationalist internationalism was wrong, and national interest was supreme, and individual and humanity were secondary to that, hence did not believe in cooperation with other nations. With this much limiting scope integral nationalism was despotic internally. According to Hayes:
“It required all citizens to conform to a common standard of manners and morals, and to share the same unreasoning enthusiasm for it. It would subordinate all personal liberties to its own purpose and if the people should complain, it would abridge democracy in the name of ‘national interest’.110
This Philosophy was derivative of the thought of 20th century’s thought of Auguste Comte, Hippolyte Adophe Taine, Maurice Barres, and Charles Maurras. Integral nationalism flourished in the 1st half of the 20th century in Italy and Germany and impacted Hungary, Poland, Turkey and Yogoslavia.111
1.21 Hans Kohn’s (1933-1971)
Kohn agrees that the Nationalism as we understand it is not older than the second half of the eighteenth century112 (1958 [1944]: 3). Hayes, Kohn and their fellow historians were thus the first to stress the historical novelty of nationalism and to explore the structural conditions that gave birth to it. Yet there were also important similarities between their work and that of the earlier generations. For one thing, as a careful reading of the above quotations will show, it is ‘nationalism’ which is problematized, not the ‘nation’ or ‘nationality’.113
109 Ibid, 165 110 Ozkirimli, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, 34 111 Ibid. 112 Kohn, 3 113 Ozkirimli, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, 31-31 51
Kohn’s idea of Nationalism was “hailed as ‘without hyperbole, the most brilliant, all-inclusive and incisive analysis of the ideological origins of nationalism which has yet appeared in my language’ in the New York Times”.114
For Kohn defining nationalism is simpler as well as demanding; he believes the nationalism to be “the end product of the process of integration of the masses of people into a common political form”. It is thus ‘unthinkable before the emergence of the modern state in the period from the 16th to the 18th century’.115
Kohn defines nationalism as ‘first and foremost a state of mind, an act of consciousness’ which has become more and more common since the French Revolution. It permeates the majority of a people and claims to permeate all its members; it posits the nation-state as the ideal form of political organization and nationality as the ultimate source of cultural energy and economic well-being. The nation thus commands the supreme loyalty of the individual.116
Kohn’s Western and non-Western nationalism—Western nationalism was a political occurrence, while non-Western (Central and Eastern European and Asian) nationalism arose later and at a more backward stage of social and political development.117 “Western nationalism is a child of the Enlightenment and as such intimately connected with the concepts of individual liberty and rational cosmopolitanism118”
1.22 E. H. Carr (1892-1982)
For the renowned British historian, E. H. Carr, a nation was not as natural as a family could be; it is confined to certain periods of history.119 Carr divides modern history of international relations on the views of nation into three periods. The first period encompasses “medieval unity of empire and church”, which was terminated by the second period, i.e. French
114 Ibid, 35 115 Ibid. 116 Ibid. 117 Ibid, 35 118 Ibid. 119 Edward Hallett Carr, Nationalism and After, (London: Macmillan, 1945). 52
Revolution. In the first period, the international relations were identified between the kings and princes, who in person were the face of states. The success of the period after French Revolution depended upon ‘balancing nationalism and internationalism. ’Carr labels the third period after 1870 till 1939, which can be marked as the period of “the catastrophic growth of nationalism”.120
Smith sounds philosophical in his approach vis-à-vis the problem of nationalism. He thinks a society should keep on restructuring its socio-political structures, so that it may face several internal crises.121
Nationalism after giving identity to people expedites the process change and development in the society through education.122 Actually the question of national identity and nationalism is the concomitant of the era of transition.
1.23 Elie Kedourie (1926- 1992)
Elie Kedourie added his strong point of view on nationalism; he stated nationalism to be a doctrine, which was conceived in Europe at the start of the nineteenth century.
He strongly believed that humanity is categorized into nations or nationalities, whose unique characteristics can be “ascertained”. Besides that, he said “the only legitimate type of government is national self-government”.123 (Elie Kedourie 1994: 1 cited in Ozkirimli 2010: 43-44) To Elie Kedourie on the one hand, nationalism was modern and on the other hand nationalism produced nations also, not the other way around.124
1.24 Earnest Gellner (1925 –1995)
120 Ozkirimli, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction. 38 121 Ibid, 39 122 John Breuilly, Nationalism and the State, (Manchester University Press, 1993), 418-19 123 Ozkirimli, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, 43-44 124 Gellner, XXi 53
Gellner’s book Nations and Nationalism has earned implication as a very important literature on nationalism. Formerly Nationalism was viewed as a constituent of ‘national history’ instead of a separate discipline’.125 According to Gellner the societies without states “cannot, conceptually, experience nationalism. The state is prior to nationalism”.
As viewed by Gellner:
Nationalism is primarily a political principle, which holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent. It is a theory of political legitimacy. According to him, it as a sentiment or as a movement can be best defined in terms of this political principle. Nationalism is a theory of political legitimacy, which requires that ethnic boundaries should not cut across political one, and, in particular, that ethnic boundaries within a given stat- a contingency already formally excluded by the principle in its general formulation- should not separate the power holders from the rest.126
However, Gellner clearly specifies concept of having a nation is very recent phenomenon, as it has never been “an inherent attribute of humanity” that in order to be perfect one must have a nation, however, in recent years its significance has reached pinnacle. The state has not always materialized with the ‘help of the nation’. Even some of the nations, came into being but without their own state. The debate in the discipline of nationalism is that the standard concept of a nation did not deduce the prior existence of the state should be the precondition.127
When literacy emerged, though it was restricted to the particular class, however, it was the development that happened in the agrarian era.128 Literacy as a matter of fact is the systematization of the script; it began the “cultural and cognitive storage and centralization”.129
Gellner believes that nations can be well-defined merely with regards to the phase of nationalism, rather than vice versa. It is not the case that ‘the age of nationalism’ is a mere
125 Ibid, xvi 126 Ibid, 1 127 Ibid, 6 128 Ibid, 8 129 Ibid, 9 54 outline ‘of awakening and political self-assertion of this, that, or the other nation’. Moderately, when over-all societal circumstances make for uniform, consistent, ‘centrally sustained high cultures’, permeating whole peoples and not just leading subgroups known as nobles, a condition arises in which definite scholastically certified and integrated cultures establish ‘the only kind of unit’ with which one can eagerly and frequently identify.130
The cultures give the impression to be the accepted and normal sources of political legality and rightfulness. Underneath these circumstances, nations can certainly be understood and defined with regards to the ‘will and culture’, and certainly with regards to the merging of them together with politically aware components or political units. Circumstantially, people determine to be electorally unified with only those people or groups who have cultural commonalities with them. Therefore, polities later wish to outspread their borders to the confines of their values, beliefs and cultures, in order to defend and enforce their culture and values with the margins of their power and supremacy. The synthesis of the wish, will and determination, particular ethos, political society and state develops as a custom cannot be easily defied or challenged.131
Gellner used anthropological lens to see the national question, based on that he saw nationalism as a function of modernity and was trying to understand relationship of modernity with nationalism.132
The one scholarly current which shared Gellner’s views about the distinguishing character of modernity, the preeminence of social organizations over ideas, and the likelihood of independent scientific knowledge was Marxism. However, Gellner overruled the Marxist interpretations that the dominant feature of modernity was capitalism, that class was the
130 Ibid, 54 131 Ibid. 132 Ibid, xx 55 major basis of identity and conflict, and that this conflict would drive capitalism towards socialism.133
Although in consensus with his LSE colleague Kedourie, who said that nationalism was modern and nationalism produced nations, not the other way around, Gellner could not agree that this was due to the power of nationalism as an idea, or of an intelligentsia as the bearer of this idea. The idea of nationalism was product, not producer of modernity.134
So, if nationalism, as observed by Gellner, was not associated with nations, classes or intelligentsia or literati, if its origins were not to be found in the study of nations, capitalism, classes or ideas, how was it to be understood?135 Gellner begins with divergence between structure and culture drawn from anthropology. To him structure speaks of to the typical roles people play and the connections between these roles. To Gellner people’s cultural expression, in which they express themselves through their attire, rituals such as dance etc. was different than the structure, which actually defines their roles that they perform in society. According to him defining a nation or group of people through structure is a pre- industrial phenomenon. In that situation, all and sundry know everyone else’s roles and their social positions. He strongly believed that the structure endows a nation with identity, while culture merely buttresses the structure. 136
He also believed that polity and culture incongruent. There are kinds of polities, which range from city-states and small territories to extensive empires. The state does not infiltrate into
133 Ibid. 134 Ibid, xxi 135 Ibid. 136 Ibid, xxiii 56 the lives of diverse communities and groups. 137 But in homogenic societies cultural identities of the states and society individuals are alike.
That is Gellner’s theory of nationalism that Nationalism is not a sentiment expressed by pre- existing nations; rather it creates nations where they did not previously exist. Gellner conceded that certain prior conditions (such as written vernacular, common territory, typical religion and ethnicities) may cause. He views nationalism that it can give rise to formation of nation states as victor states did that in the central Europe in 1918. In some examples, he sees nationalism served as an instrument to industrialization but it is not a rule. He gives example of Swiss nationalism; he also mentions how Islam was able to function as equivalent to nationalism, while it was not possible for Christianity to do so.138
Umut Ozkirimli (1972 Turkey) 139 he academic inquiry on nationalism begins as well as intensified with the downfall of Soviet Union. Umut Ozkirimli points out at it as a ‘rediscovery’ of nationalism as the Cold War ended.140 Yet the prerequisite of ethnic and national conflicts needs to be qualified as Ozkirimli says, however, one thing is sure that a legitimate right cannot be illegitimate, while no legitimate right-holder has any right to get that right back by the use of oppression. Neither, global human ethics allows any group to question or challenge legitimate right. Defining what legitimate is and what is not is a challenging aspect of this entire debate. If we believe nationalism is connected with society, and when we apply this concept on Sindh’s society, then its urban parts have diverse ethnic groups ready to challenge the native group.
“Even where we are deeply critical of the nationalism, we see, we should recognize the continued importance of national solidarities. Even if we wish for a more
137 Ibid. 138 Ibid, xxv 139 Ozkirimli, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, 1 140 Ibid, 1 57
cosmopolitan world order, we should be realistic enough not to act on mere wishes”141
1.25 Pakistan: Sindh Case
Sindh was a self-governing and sovereign state when Muhammad bin Qasim invaded it and removed Brahman dynasty in 711/712. This magnanimous change transformed Sindh’s society both culturally and politically and provided a robust base to Muslim rule (of the Umayyad and the Abbasid caliphates) in the entire region for about two hundred years. Since the Arabs uplifted Sindhi language in the Naskh script, and the Sindhi scholars were offered intellectual exposure to the Muslim world, it gave Islam free space to flourish in the region.
The first Sindhi rulers of Sindh, as recorded in the history, were the Soomras (Ancient Sindhi Hindus, who later converted to Islam), substituted the Arab Rule. They were able ‘to unite all Sindhi tribes to generate a power-base of resistance against any foreign occupation and rule’.142 After the Soomra dynasty (1024 to 1351), Sindh was ruled by the three Sindhi dynasties, which included the Samma (1351-1524) AD, the Kalhoras (1701 to 1783)., and the Talpurs respectively. (1783 to 1843)
In Sindh, a proper identity question emerged with the end of the Talpur rule after the British imposed their Raj in 1843. The Talpur rulers fought with the colonial rulers nonetheless could not succeed. Since then till now, the question of nationalism in Sindh has gone through quite a lot of phases, as well as has gained political maturity (the third chapter discusses trends and narratives of Sindhi nationalism in history).
Pakistan came into being in 1947, though the concept of an independent state for the Muslims of India came forth in 1930s, and in the Lahore Resolution the formation of an independent state out of Indian Sub-Continent was officially endorsed. On August 14, 1947, the United Kingdom allowed Pakistan to join the Commonwealth as an independent state.
141 Ibid, 3 142 Chiefa Coins (http://www.chiefacoins.com/Database/Countries/Sindh.htm). 58
Pakistan was categorized into the East and West Pakistan; the West part included the existing Pakistan, while the East comprised of East Bengal, which became independent from Pakistan in 1971 and assumed name Bangladesh.
Since its inception Pakistan has passed through several political jolts, which include the untimely death of the Governor General of Pakistan and founder of Pakistan Muhammad Ali Jinnah in 1948; assassination of the first Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan in 1951; imposition of the first marshal law and annulment of elections by Iskandar Mirza (President) by suspending the 1956 Constitution. That brought General Ayub Khan (1958) as the first military dictator, and second military ruler by sending General Iskandar Mirza on exile.
The later misfortunes included replacement of General Ayub Khan with General Yahya Khan (1969–1971), 1971 debacle, assassination of Bhutto in 1979, and the military rule of General Zia ul Haq. General Zia ul Haq was not the last ruler after the restoration of democracy in 1988, as the Marshall Law of General Musharraf yet again came with a new face and new maneuvering. When the democratic political parties led by Ms. Benazir Bhutto and Mr. Nawaz Sharif were being time and again toppled. The marshal administrators took over, the nation states termed as provinces, faced oppression during the military rules within Pakistan.
The provinces since the inception of Pakistan have been struggling for their privileges and constitutional rights, which were documented and validated in the 1940 Lahore Resolution of Pakistan. Consequently, the provinces especially Sindh and Balochistan have been advocating for their provincial rights and voicing against the state oppression.
However, the similar sentiment had already emerged in Sindh far before the partition of the Indian Sub-Continent.
In the present context of Pakistan, by the end of the 20th century, the nationalist movements and struggles gained prominence, which encompassed both separatist as well as federalist ideological outfits. For example, G. M. Syed, who once was a staunch supporter of the creation of Pakistan and a diehard federalist, got disheartened after the One Unit and Bengal 59 debacle, began struggle for the independence of Sindh from Pakistan from 1972 until he breathed last in 1995.
Above and beyond these political vicissitudes, the demography of Sindh province has been extensively changed since the inception of Pakistan. The Sindhi native inhabitants were 98% in the province at the time of making of Pakistan and at present Sindh has a number of new ethnic identities, who migrated to Sindh at several occasions, such as a Urdu-speaking populace from India who migrated during and after the partition; natural disasters were also the cause of the inter-provincial migration, and a huge population that migrated after Afghan crises from Afghanistan as well.
The present-day status of ethnic diversity in Sindh demands a politically & economically intelligent solution to resolve the identity crises—a solution, which is practicable and acceptable to both the natives and the migrated peoples.
1.26 Original
In Pakistan, the diverse identities have been united with coercion and connected mechanically. If that unity was created without coercion and without challenging the distinct identities of the nations that constituted the country, the fate of the country would definitely have been different.
In Pakistan, the country, in which there have been both anti-nationalist movements of the provinces, and anti-ethnicity as it has been trying to promote single identity that caused great conflicts resulting into massacres of the nations, residing within. Hence Luxemburg proves failed here as she mistakenly thought that focusing class conflicts would solve the other national issues, it did not happen in Pakistan’s case.
The class struggle and national question can coexist if there is an oppressed nation or more than one such nation. However, in my view it requires to handle the problem with Cartesian 60
(Rene Descartes, quote exactly) methodology, which would be dividing the problems into simple and complex and addressing the simpler first and the complex next. Hence oppression of one nation over the other has a precedent value that requires resolution prior to starting fighting against the class question.
In Pakistan, the class question could not rise, rather dropped in oblivion as the nationalities that joined Pakistan, throughout the inception of the country, have been busy into fighting for their identity and rights, the coexistence has been a great challenge (rephrase). In Sindh, a very minor section of diverse ethnic groups unites themselves at socialist platform; majority of the people, especially from Sindhi and Urdu speaking groups have been having the political outfits representing their particular ethnic groups. That is why the preparation of class struggle has always been hampered by the challenges of ethnic dilemma faced by the constituent units of the federation.
Pakistan’s case could also be resolved through Austro Marxists like Bauer (1881-1938) and Karl Renner (1870-1950) who, in case of Austro-Hungarian Empire, denied secession of its constituent nationalities and recommended “national-cultural autonomy” to be granted to them. This would make them stay united as “autonomous units and sovereign collectives” within the empire.
If the federation of Pakistan follows Bauer and Renner model, its each nationality would “form a single public body which is sovereign and has the authority to deal with all national- cultural affairs”143
This model will allow the constituent units and the federal state divide the subjects, like education and culture for the nationalities and “the federal state would deal with social and economic issues as well as justice, defense and foreign policy”144. While the federating units
143 Nimni, Marxism and Nationalism: Theoretical Origins of a Political Crisis, xvii-xviii 144 John Breuilly, Nationalism and the State, 418-19 61 in Pakistan are rather more autonomous now than the Bauer and Renner model as the economic matters of the provinces in Pakistan are provincial subject now after the 18th Constitutional Amendment.
What Bauer talks can define the migrants from India in 1940s and 50s in Sindh’s larger cities, and migrants from Afghanistan and Khyber Pukhtunkhwa in 80s, 90s, and 2000s to Karachi and other major cities of Sindh. The migrant Urdu speaking (Muhajirs) did not have common culture and common language, however, being an extreme minority, they adopted a common language, Urdu, which was given status of national and official language of Pakistan. In this way, they gave themselves a unique identity, and claimed exclusive geographical space within the territory among the natives and new-comers respectively.
In Bauer’s views that diversity of classes jointly shapes the national culture; he firmly believes that in a socialist system the antagonism among nationalities ceases to exist, as he saw the base of the main conflict was class contradiction. In the absence of class division, the national identities would automatically give rise to cooperation and coexistence. However, in my strong opinion, the antagonism among nations may only cease to exist when the nations are not deprived of their cultural, economic and political rights. In Pakistan’s case rise of class question and a grand alliance among the diverse nations and groups is directly proportional to first resolving the cultural, economic and political rights of the provinces.
This alliance can be formed through cosmopolitanism, a modern political phenomenon that cannot only unite diversity on reasonable grounds, but it also will address the questions of rights of citizens. The next chapter discusses cosmopolitanism as well as cosmopolitan nationalism in detail.
62
Chapter II Nature of Cosmopolitan Nationalism & its Corresponding Manifestations: Understanding Pakistan Context
63
This chapter deliberates on how the former ideologies of nationalism in the world, which were based on blood, race, language, historicity and territorial identity, evolved towards cosmopolitan nationalism. It discusses two basic principles of the cosmopolitan nationalism, which include principle of citizenship and pluralism and unity in diversity.
By the principle of citizenship, it means that despite having diversified race, color, religion, language and cultural identities, groups can cohabit in a social habitat built on collective social benefits with individual liberty. While the principle of pluralism and unity in diversity points toward political nationalism that can form common citizenship regardless of unique cultural diversity as it is in the United States of America, Germany, Switzerland, and Canada.
A true cosmopolitanism demands facsimiles of citizenry and nationhood that supposedly converge on the foundations of universal principles of civil liberties and moral limitations. In cosmopolitanism, one respects the multiplicity of communal, societal and ethno-cultural life; each person is not required to join a uniform universal culture; which means having inter and intra state metamorphoses is normal.
Can Sindh become that ideal form of cosmopolitan state? This paper explores dimensions of cosmopolitanism and cosmopolitan nationalism and possibilities and prospects of Sindh’s being a cosmopolitan state within Pakistan. This paper develops an argument on the fact that the provinces, which formed federation of Pakistan, could have demonstrated the finest instances of cosmopolitan nationalism if the rudimentary values and guidelines were likewise considered as considered in the federations all over the world.
Founded on the rise of capitalist democracy, built on industrial and urban professional civil society (civility, citizenship) a new relationship emerged that gave rise to political nationalism, i.e. cosmopolitan nationalism. Cosmopolitan nationalism, as a matter of fact, is an advanced form of political and economic nationhood that developed and strengthened in capitalist society. Cosmopolitan nationalism can be defined in the following ways: 64
The earlier ideologies of nationhood were based on blood, race, language, historicity and territorial identity, in which these factors were a pivotal dimension. However, in 19th and later on in 20th centuries this ideology augmented with other ideals as well. And as it advanced, it incorporated within building of a nation based on citizenship, collective economic and social interests, which we may call cosmopolitan nationalism.
The base of the cosmopolitan nationalism has two principles:
2.1 Principle of citizenship:
The ideology of citizenship emerged in modern democracy or democratic system, which means in spite of diverse people, race, colour, religion, language and culture, groups can coexist in a society based on collective social interests with individual liberty. The state would respect individuals without meddling into the citizens’ religion, culture, ideology, and individual freedom. This principle emerged soon after the abolition of nobility; and one can see the idea of citizenship appearing in the social contract theory, which began from Rousseau, Locke and Hobbes, and in 20th century John Rawls brought that under discussion.
2.2 Pluralism and Unity in Diversity:
In a feudal society, the relationship among groups was monistic. While in capitalist, industrialist and urban societies the citizenship was based on multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-lingual and multi-religious elements. This implies that political nationalism can also form common citizenship; no matter people belonging to that citizenship have different languages, cultures and religions as it is in the United States of America.
Having a common political, economic and moral solidarity among all human beings of the globe is a lavish dream, which has emerged after sudden demographic changes in the world through mass migrations. However, the idea of being one with the entire humanity exists beyond its political genesis. Not many countries have ethnic and religious homogeneity of nations. Usually diversified ethnic identities are enveloped under one single identifier for 65 global recognition; the groups inside that grant identity avail and cherish all the ingredients of nationhood associated with their both shared and unique identities. This is what we call cosmopolitanism in true sense. Can Pakistan become that ideal form of cosmopolitan identity? This paper explores several dimensions of cosmopolitanism and cosmopolitan nationalism; and in the coming papers would explore possibilities and prospect of Sindh’s being a cosmopolitan state.
2.3 Understanding Cosmopolitanism
The Greek word Cosmopolites (Kosmopolites) is derived from ‘cosmos’ (World) and ‘polites’ (citizen), means “citizen of the world”. According to this Greek connotation, as viewed by Appiah, the “World actually meant cosmos or universe in broader sense, not just the Earth. The global connotation of the word Cosmopolitanism has become a bit different than its Greek etymological origin”. 145
According to Merriam Webster dictionary cosmopolitan means someone showing interest in different cultures, ideas, etc. or it means a town or country “having people from many different parts of the world”.146 Hence its dual meaning, simultaneously, relates to an individual and a state or nation.
Oxford dictionary defines that cosmopolitan being is someone that is comfortably acquainted with diverse cultures and countries. There are some other meanings of cosmopolitanism as well. For example, a cosmopolitan town has to be comprised of folks of different races and origins from many countries. Besides that, it also means to have ‘an exciting and glamorous character associated with travel and a mixture of cultures’.
145 Kwame Anthony Appiah. “Cosmopolitan patriots”, In Martha Nussbaum & J. Cohen (Eds.), For love of country: Debating the limits of patriotism, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1996), 21-29 146 Learners Dictionary (http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/cosmopolitan). Accessed on 15 June, 2015 66
Cosmopolitan, in a meaning irrelevant to this subject, is name of a plant147 that exists all over the world.148
According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy this term ‘has been used to describe a wide variety of important views in moral and socio-political philosophy’.149
Henceforth the question what it means to be a cosmopolitan individual, nation, country or town has both political as well as cultural meanings. Nielsen Kai in her paper “Cosmopolitan Nationalism” describes in detail what it means to be a cosmopolitan. According to her being cosmopolitan means being citizen of the world, and having “a commitment to and a concern for all of humankind and not just for some subunit of it, and it is, as well, to have some reasonable understanding of, to prize and to take pleasure in, humankind's vast, and sometimes creative, diversity”.150
Since the idea of cosmopolitanism in general proposes that the entire diversity of human beings inhibiting this planet is citizens of a single community, its rich connotation outlines it in a range of ways. Accordingly, a person or a city can be cosmopolitan vis-à-vis political, social, cultural and political preference so can be a state or nation for similar references. In general, the cosmopolitan expression could be accepting or celebrating shared cultural expressions, political system and a communally agreed upon principles of the market and society.
2.4 Cosmopolitanism in Political history context
147 Heritage Perennials, (http://www.perennials.com/plants/geum-cosmopolitan.html) Accessed on 15 June, 2015 148 Oxford Dictionaries, (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/cosmopolitan). Accessed on 15 June, 2015 149 (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmopolitanism). 150 Kai Nielsen, “Toward a liberal socialist cosmopolitan nationalism”, International Journal of Philosophical Studies 11:4 (2003): 437-463 67
Cosmopolitanism, as a political notion, may be understood as: 1) cosmopolitan with state and 2) cosmopolitan without state. Hence, politically, cosmopolitanism means it has relation with state, and this connotation is very old. While cosmopolitan without state has just a social connotation, which is not very old. As in the eras of monarchies and kingdoms, the state and people relationship was that of a patron and client. Fundamentally the idea cosmopolitanism emerged after industrial revolution; before that it had links with Greeko- Roman civilizational democracy in Athens, where for the first time the concept of citizenship emerged. Nevertheless, there were many flaws into that democratic structure of the civilization; for example, only 20% of the population, which were nobles, were allowed within citizenship; while women, slaves and outsiders were excluded from citizenry. However, it was a beginning, and one can see how cosmopolitanism is evolved since then.
2.5 True Cosmopolitan Individual
There are ideals and models for being a true cosmopolitan as viewed by Nielson. Such as a true cosmopolitan individuals would never ‘grudgingly accept’ the diversity of languages, ethnicities, religions, cultures and cultural manifestations; rather they would happily accept presence of those who are culturally distinct and aspire to ‘see them prevail where their prevailing does not harm others’.151 A coexisting diversity if accepts each other with a grudge or regret, it would block flourishing of each cultural unit and its freedom of practicing the cultural richness in a shared society.
Hence respecting the diversified cultural identities, and assuming oneself no superior or inferior to them, is the morality that is ultimate height of a true cosmopolitan moral being. Achieving that height hence should be the definitive goal of an individual and society. So is Nussbaum’s cosmopolitan human-being is the vital entity of the ethical value, which deserves equality irrespective of their political, cultural or territorial identity—this makes all
151 Nielsen, “Toward a liberal socialist cosmopolitan nationalism”, 437-463 68 humans strictly equal to each other.152 In Rawl’s view a nationalist would regard group identity that can become or is already a national identity, sustenance of which depends on human “flourishing” in a “just polity” that protects nations by protecting its individuals with surety of “self-governance”.153
The most important question to be explored through is: Can nationalism and cosmopolitanism go hand in hand? Why not going straight-out for cosmopolitanism and its internationalist outlook without using joint terms such as cosmopolitan nationalism? Why in Pakistan’s context cosmopolitan nationalism is more apt to use?
Let’s now explore various dimensions and kinds of nationalism and cosmopolitanism, to finally draw forth the conclusion vis-à-vis Pakistan.
2.6 Liberal nationalism and Cosmopolitanism
2.6 a. Revival of nationalist struggles
The revival of nationalist struggles in various parts of the world that lately have reintroduced trials and tests of “multiculturalism and migration within liberal democracies”, have provoked mushrooming of penchant amongst liberal thinkers and academicians on the subject of nationalism. One of the consequences of this conflict with nationalism is the mounting unanimity between current liberal academics “that liberalism and nationalism, far from being contradictory ideals as once commonly thought, are not only compatible but indeed mutually reinforcing ideals”. Nationalism compels liberalism to discipline it and to train it in conjunction with more democratic ways, therefore “liberalism needs nationalism in order to achieve its ends”154
152 Martha Nussbaum. Patriotism and cosmopolitanism. In Martha Nussbaum, et al. (Eds.), For love of country: Debating the limits of patriotism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1996), 2-20 153 John Rawls, Political Liberalism. (Columbia University Press,1993), 15-22. 154 Kok-Chor Tan, “Liberal Nationalism and Cosmopolitan Justice. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice”, Springer Stable Vol. 5, No. 4 (December 2002): pp. 431-461 69
There is a relationship between liberal standpoint and ‘cosmopolitan citizenship’; this ostensible correlation amongst liberal tutelage and ‘cosmopolitan citizenship’ is fundamental to Nussbaum’s point of view. It has inherited lineage from Socratic notion of the scrutinized life and Aristotle’s idea of insightful nationality to Greek representations of liberal training. Liberal tutelage redeems the minds from the servitude of customary norms and, in consequence, offers an instructive means to engender skillful learners with the accessibility and wisdom that is in coherence with a cosmopolitan citizenship155
2.6 b. Defining Liberal Nationalism: All in the Same Boat The key attribute of Liberal Nationalism is to acknowledge diversity with equality. Nielsen gives an interesting example for defining a liberal nationalist perspective. A liberal nationalist, according to her, would trust that if any state has diversified nations, then its “all nations are in the same boat”, hence they must defend their own nation and nationality and consider the survival of the entire boats & its passengers, in which one’s own nation also survives, sustains and flourishes among all other nations—we must not look away the principle of equality, only that ensures survival of all fairly. Moreover, it must give “equal consideration” to the interests of every nation and that no nation's interests can be privileged”.156
While inflating one’s own nationhood to the highest extents that other nations are treated inferior, is not only unjustified, rather narcissistic and fatal as the above-mentioned metaphor states. Many of the liberal nationalists believe in reconciling liberal nationalism with cosmopolitanism and believe in describing it as a civic nationalism instead of ethnic nationalism would be more apt157
155 Martha Nussbaum, Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal education. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 8 156 Kai Nielsen, “Cosmopolitan Nationalism”. The Monist, Volume 82, no. 3 (1999): pp. 452 157 Brian Barry, “Statism and Nationalism: A Cosmopolitan Critique” (1999). Quoted in I. Shapiro and L. Brilmayer (eds.), Global Justice. (New York University Press, 1999), pp. 53-60 70
Civic nationalism is hypothetically ordered based on political standards instead of a cultural basis; it visualizes the nation as a group of people that coexists in the form of “equal rights- bearing citizens", however they are united only in their shared commitments to common political theory and practices.
2.6 c. Common Factors in Liberal Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism The liberal nationalism and cosmopolitanism can have common factors that draw forth compatibilities; according to her the liberal nationalism emphasizes upon the features of acceptance, self-rule, egalitarianism, and also endorses upon safeguarding human rights and ‘” societal non-privileging of any comprehensive conception of the good”158
A suitably planned liberal instruction fosters three rudimentary aptitudes amongst ‘cosmopolitan citizens’: 1) to liberate their thoughts from conservative conventions and practices together with the capabilities for severe scrutiny of one’s own outlook and customs; 2) the ability to associate with an international ethical and anthropological group; and 3) lastly the capability for descriptive imagination, or the aptitude to envision ethnic or cultural variance and associate with them in a compassionate manner159
A liberal nationalist would recommend that since the group identity and cultural membership are the major necessities for all human beings (in Rawls's sense, a primary good), then morally speaking, it is something that must not be recognized, acknowledged and accepted only for particularly one’s own group but for all human beings. Besides that, it would sound judicious to accept or reject similar benefits and obligations equally for all adjoining nations. Advising the “minimal and unproblematic conception of universalizability” Nielsen suggests that when a:
“national identity is the form that group identity takes under conditions of modernity, then sustaining or attaining, as the case may be, a secure national identity for the members of a nation should not only obtain for her nation but for all nations
158 Nielsen, “Cosmopolitan Nationalism”, 446-468. 159 Nussbaum, Cultivating humanity, 9-11 71
in such conditions. This reiteration only assumes the minimal and unproblematic conception of universalizability that if is good for A then is good for anyone relevantly like A in situations relevantly like those of A”.160
What Nielsen means here is that if the cultural recognition and identity is deemed as “a primary good”, and if it is in an egalitarian system, then everyone should have their right on that primary good; the privilege should not be merely given to the selective people or groups. This is what can be identified as egalitarian justice that a primary good should not be selectively available to privileged groups.
2.7 Post-World War II Scene-Group identity and National identity
As the argument rightly establishes that the idea of cosmopolitan identity cannot flourish for a single nation in isolation unless there is flourishing space and opportunity for the local identities as well that can discover themselves as the unit of specific community, which has its own cultural ways of practicing rites and mores.161
In the composite and multi-part societies of modern-day life, as Rawls describes about the state where is either a nation-state or a kind of the multi-nation state, our group identity becomes a national identity. It is a pivotal and unavoidable element of our self-definition, of our sense of identity, even though it has nominal contribution in our “conceptualizations of who we are or in our sense of our moral identity”. Also, post-World War II scenario exhibits quite intricate world where multi-nation states burgeoned and group identities turned out to be the national identities. However, in relation to this point of view, Rawls proclaims that a sense of self-identity sustains with the assurance that being in the ocean of diversity still we know and are known as who we are. The liberal nationalists do not propose reversing priorities and perceive our niche of nationality as the focal aspect. The most imperative is to recognize ‘who we are or in setting our life priorities’.162
160 Nielsen, “Cosmopolitan Nationalism”, 449-450 161 Nielsen, “Toward a liberal socialist cosmopolitan nationalism”, International Journal of Philosophical Studies 11:4 (2003): 453 162 Rawls, Political Liberalism, 30-21 72
2.8 Being a Nationalist and Cosmopolitan simultaneously
There is no doubt that human beings want self-identity; being known with a particular identity is one of the strongest desires one can have, which is to be known as who we are. Hence along with having a cosmopolitan identity, one would like to have a unique local identity also that becomes part of the cosmos of the nations; being part of a cosmos while retaining and enduring one’s own uniqueness may do away identity crises that has been obstructing political peace in human society.163 Hence the basic principle of any kind of coexistence requires acknowledgement of the unique identities of others.
Nielsen being champion on the subject, in another article “Toward a Liberal Socialist Cosmopolitan Nationalism “(2003) elucidates how liberal socialist nationalism is a kind of cosmopolitan nationalism. He believes that despite being incongruent terminologically and ideologically, ‘cosmopolitan nationalism’, ‘liberal socialist nationalism’ and even ‘liberal nationalism’ can go along.164
2.9 Rooted Cosmopolitanism
Without local attachments, one will fail to have universalistic attachments. What paradigm Nielsen wants to talk about is to cherish “universalistic commitments” on the one hand, and having “sense of who we are” on the other hand. As Mitchell Cohen (1995) and Appiah (1996) also view that the particular identification that is common for many and is “historically and culturally rooted”, it makes us “rooted cosmopolitans”165
In a rooted cosmopolitanism, each individual has rights to civil liberties and socio-political rights; it eventually guarantees camaraderie among diversity; here we see how egalitarianism or equality is directly proportional to liberty and vice versa. Similar is the work
163 Barber, In Nielsen, “Toward a liberal socialist cosmopolitan nationalism”, International Journal of Philosophical Studies 11:4 (2003): 437-463 164 Nielsen, “Toward a liberal socialist cosmopolitan nationalism”, 437 165 Mitchell Cohen & Appiah, in Nielsen, “Cosmopolitan Nationalism”. The Monist, Volume 82, no. 3 (1999): pp 458-459 73 of John Rawls and Amartiya Sen in which they make strong argument that the rights and privileges of ethnic and faith-based citizens should be duly esteemed. This is what we may call liberal nationalism, without these constituting components nationalism would cease to be liberal. As for Justice Sen (quoting Lord Hewart) argues that it ‘should not only be done, it must also be [“seen to be done”]’166
2.10 Cosmopolitan Nationalism to Cosmopolitan Democracy
Eckersley’s view of cosmopolitanism may be understood from her perspective on nationalism. By nationalism Eckersley means a philosophy of affiliation to the nation (which may be politically compassionate or threatening, contingent to the relevant identity), which is characteristically linked with a credence or belief in the right to self-rule, customarily as an autonomous statehood. With these discrepancies, a cosmopolitan nation may be a group of people with multiracial character, coexist in a shared land of a self-governing state or country. The unity among the group is safeguarded by the shared socio-political obligations and common commitments t towards freedom and justice for all.167
However, there are prerequisites for materializing cosmopolitan citizenship. Eckersley shows that how the cosmopolitans plead for global citizenship without knowing the preconditions for actualization of such fantasy. She points out to the democratic accomplishments of the nation-state that stemmed from the synthesis of the contemporary nation & contemporary state, which are often overlooked by liberal cosmopolitans. She thinks that Habermas's idea of ‘constitutional patriotism' and disagrees with it with the argument that it cannot ensure the 'we-feeling' that is focal prerequisite to an interconnected nation and cosmopolitan democracy. Eckersley closes her argument by describing that an all-encompassing methodology to nation-building—one that esteems ethno-cultural dissimilarities and offers justice within the nation—ensures the most favorable foundations for the progress of a
166 Amartiya Sen, The Country of First Boys, (Oxford, 2016) 167 Robyn Eckersley, “From Cosmopolitan Nationalism to Cosmopolitan Democracy”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 33 No. 4, (2007): 675-69 74 cosmopolitan national identity that is reverential of cultural divergences and trails universal justice further than the nation”.168
Eckersley discusses that in order to alleviate global injustices, it is necessary to restructure the world according to Cosmopolitan Democracy. Cosmopolitan democracy, in her views, should be practiced nationally instead of globally. A new cosmopolitan world would require a cosmopolitan order that does benefit all states— that ensures a privilege for all; the world needs architects of global order in this globalized world.169
However, prior to that it is mandatory to let the nationalities flourish. This is also a fact that a paradigm if is successful at micro level may have stronger chances to succeed at macro level also. Hence harnessing nationalism into cosmopolitanism instead of weakening it would be more suitable idea, which would strengthen cosmopolitanism as well.
Democracy must be beyond state borders, and such systems should benefit entire nations, and a just world, if is globalized, it would only benefit all the stakeholders, nonetheless, we should “explore the possibilities of institutional reconstruction from the inside-out, rather than from the outside-in”.
“In this respect, it is in sympathy with the recent quasi-communitarian turn in cosmopolitan political thought, which has spawned a range of more qualified, hybrid positions such as 'thin cosmopolitanism', 'rooted cosmopolitanism', 'actually existing cosmopolitanism', 'embedded cosmopolitanism', 'cosmopolitan nationalism' and nationalist interpretations of 'constitutional patriotism”.170
The focal criticism on the liberal cosmopolitans is that it creates discourse on global citizenship without specifying its dynamics that may successfully substantialize it. Somehow weakening of nationalism is something anti to celebration for several subaltern nations or
168 Robin Eckersley, “From Cosmopolitan Nationalism to Cosmopolitan Democracy”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 33, No. 4 (Oct. 2007): 675 169 Ibid., 675 170 Ibid.,675 75 groups. Quoting Meyda Yegenoglu about the popular nationalist movements Eckersley says that many of the movements in the southern parts of the world emerged as a reaction to globalization that softened the borders and created artificial acculturation in the world that ultimately undermined the national identities, weakened political autonomies and challenged the legitimacy of nation states. It eventually weakens social solidarity in globalization.171
What globalization has given so far does not seem translating its own utopian objectives, instead its implications are making this world dystopia. Without having local allegiances how global allegiances would be possible. Allegiances, commitments, patriotism are not only theories; these cannot be implemented without long practice and internalization of the theories. Local national attachments, if abandoned, the principle of global attachments becomes futile. Any practice that is shunned at local level, then why it should be cherished globally? The term nationalism is seen through the lens of Nazi nationalism that changed the face of the world after World War II.
2.11 Critique
What insecurities the nationalities may have in cosmopolitanism? Liberal nationalism may point out to those. There is an inherent tension between cosmopolitanism and liberal nationalism as argued by Kok-Chor Tan, but in his point, that is just apparent. In his words,
Tension between cosmopolitanism & liberal nationalism is only apparent. Once the goals and content of cosmopolitan global justice, on the one hand, and the parameters of liberal nationalism, on the other, are properly defined and identified, the perceived conflict between liberal nationalism & cosmopolitanism disappears.
The cosmopolitanism has to respond to these highly important questions that how idea of “self-determination” and “national partiality” would be dealt in cosmopolitan state; besides
171Ibid., 678 76 that, the “national affinity” that is essentiality of cosmopolitanism how it would be made possible.172
Can liberal nationalism and cosmopolitanism be tied together as the proponents of this idea believe that the liberal nationalism is more a civic nationalism and not ethnic nationalism? Tan argues that civic nationalism is based on political ideas instead of cultural hence it buttresses communitarian ideals which are equality based and citizens unite on (political ideal and practices”.173 As in ethnic nationalism culture is the basic driving force that unites particular ethnic identity, while in civic nationalism citizenship belonging to diverse identity unities under the umbrella of political ideologies such as democracy, liberalism, socialism or social democracy etc. However, the nature of civic nationalism is more universalistic, the particular can merge into that only when its exclusiveness is respected.
Brian Barry views that when liberal nationalism is limited to civic nationalism the differences between liberal nationalism and cosmopolitanism disappear. Only resources are shared equally among rich and poor, which actually does not harm rich ones.174
To Amy Gutmann, the targets of cosmopolitanism are better achieved through cultivating a strong sense of democratic citizenship than through a global transplanting of the nation- state system: "Democratic citizens have institutional means at their disposals that solitary individuals, or citizens of the world, do not. Some of those institutional means are international in scope..., but even those tend to depend on the cooperation of sovereign societies for effective action".175
172 Kok-Chor Tan, “Liberal Nationalism and Cosmopolitan Justice. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice", Springer Stable, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Dec., 2002): pp. 431-461 Accessed on September 22, 2014 URL: htp://www.jstor.org/stable/27504253 173 Micheal Ignatieff, Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism. (Penguin Books, 1993), pp 6- 7 174 Brian Barry, Statism and Nationalism: A Cosmopolitan Critique. In I. Shapiro and L. Brilmayer (eds.), Global Justice. (New York University Press, 1999), pp. 12-16. 175 Amy Gutmann, Democratic Citizenship. In J. Cohen (ed.), For Love of Country. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1996), pp. 66-71. 77
2.12 Critique on Cosmopolitanism and Globalization
Such sense of conscientious self-identity expands ideas so much that local begins assuming characteristics of global. In this way, the world that makes us both, local and global; that duality is known as glocal now days. Needless to mention the modern world is going to be truly a culturally-diversifies place for assorted humanity where religious, sectarian, ethnic, class and gender identities are treasured and let flourish with high-quality forbearance. In Nielsen’s words, we can take in political orientations too into the list, such as one can be Liberal, Communist, Green or Social Democrat, all can be accepted simultaneously under one umbrella also. Though it would be too complex to handle such diversity in coexistence at one place, however, there are ways to make it possible through win-win situation. We accept the fact that we live and grow into a part of the world where people speak a specific language or languages and live in a certain culture. 176 According to Amartya Sen that despite there are ample reasons to justify that ‘economic globalization’ is a success; similarly, it is amply hard to prove that ‘globalization is a manifest blessing’ and a ‘boon’ for the poor classes also.177
There is a range of questions that critics of globalization have come up with; the foremost of those is about the term itself. For example, since being ‘cosmopolitan’ means being citizen of the world state that of course should treat everyone equally as well, which so far does not seem to exist in reality; hence it should be used as a “metaphor” at this stage and not as a reality.178 This question may potentially challenge the very idea of making a truly cosmopolitan world in its roots, as its implementation requires decades or even a century to be actualized. The critique on cosmopolitanism is reasonable as well as noteworthy; which clarifies the pros and cons of the system that how it can be made further accommodating by making it more human-friendly. Not necessary the idea of cosmopolitanism appeals to all and sundry and proposes an ample or feasible way out to the issue of international clashes.
176 Nielsen, “Cosmopolitan Nationalism”, 456 177 Amartiya Sen, The Country of First Boys, (Oxford 2016), 140-141 178 Nielsen, “Cosmopolitan Nationalism”, 446 78
The many reactions to such type of cosmopolitanism contain theoretical appraisals, class analyses), and certain opponents who denounce the proposal of a nationless, stateless and deprived of patriotic partialities and penchants.179
Appiah’s approaches towards cosmopolitanism and nationalism are in well-matched concepts for the reason that they are not jointly opposing ideas. Reasonably, cosmopolitanism rejoices self-rule and egalitarianism, and emphasizes upon respecting the privileges of others and respect their ethos and autonomous states or nations180
Eckersley views democracy to be reliant upon “cosmopolitan nationalism, based on a commitment to common liberty and justice at home and abroad”. Eckersley’s critique on cosmopolitan democracy is that excessive focus on accommodating diversity may weaken the national identities of the communities. Weak national identities would be resistant to cosmopolitanism. Autocratic regimes’ tool of creating uniformity raises identity problem. 181
The ingredients of globalization, besides enriching the world, make it more intricate as well. Therefore, globalization has drawbacks; it tries to merge those diverging cultural identities at one platform, which still have not resolved their internal conflicts. As Rawls mentions that the contemporary state is either in the form of the nation-state or at multi-nation stage, where group identities jointly flourish and form one single national identity. Even though a grand identity makes an individual more cosmopolitan, and part of a mosaic of diversity, just one essentiality must not be looked away that the local identity must be respected, and never looked down upon.182 However this idea should not be misunderstood that every group should put their sense of national identity as the sole focus; but denial of the national
179 Gertude Himmelfarb, The illusion of cosmopolitanism. In Martha Nussbaum & J. Cohen (Eds.), For love of country (Boston: Beacon Press 1996), pp. 74 180 Appiah, Kwame Anthony. Cosmopolitan patriots, (1996). Quoted in Martha Nussbaum & J. Cohen Eds., For love of country: Debating the limits of patriotism, (Boston: Beacon Press), 21-29 181 Eckersley, “From Cosmopolitan Nationalism to Cosmopolitan Democracy”, 675 182 Rawls, Political Liberalism, 30-31 79 identity creates complexity, and ultimately affects cosmopolitanism by restricting its expansion.
Nielsen endorses upon emphasizing that the “considerations of nationality will vary with the security of our nation”. Giving examples from different countries she states that the “situation is very different for a Basque or a Kurd than for a member of a German speaking or French-speaking Swiss canton (where their cantons, as they are, are perfectly secure)”.183 The states where people form a nation and are not in identity crises, they genuinely attach themselves to their own community, which has similar language, culture, ritualistic practices and a common history. All of these ingredients jointly contribute to strengthening the bond and sense of alienation that never takes place in the situation otherwise for the reasons that, on the one hand, one is linked with one mass of individuals, on the other hand, one is easily distinguished from one’s neighbor in that particular linguistic, cultural and historical perspective.184
The world is globalizing rapidly, hence it should create more viable systems to meet the challenges of the same—the cosmopolitan democracy would help do that. Out of a number of the drawbacks of globalization, some are, according to cosmopolitans like Eckersley, poverty, human rights violation, food crises, environmental hazards & degradation and cross-border migration. The critics of cosmopolitanism state that that cross-border business or migration spreads flow of weapons, diseases, and people who proved to be a package migration caused cultural diversity, which in one or other way undermine the unique cultural practices of local. Hence the major criticism on the Liberal cosmopolitans is that they support diluting state sovereignty and globalizing citizenship, which ultimately weakens national identities. 185 Such initiative would require a priori preparations, such as strongly pursuing principles of coexistence of diversity within one umbrella to become world citizens; this great ideal may require democratic legislation at the world level.
183 Nielsen, “Cosmopolitan Nationalism”, 454 184 Ibid, 455 185 Eckersley, “From Cosmopolitan Nationalism to Cosmopolitan Democracy”, 675 80
The diverse commonalities strengthen the unity and united recognition among the coexisting nationalities. However, the debate over the pros and cons of cosmopolitan system has generated diverse opinions and interpretations about the system. On the one hand, when it is approached as a human-friendly ideal in well-managed multi-cultural society, on the other hand, it can make local cultural and political identities insecure in autocratic regimes, as we have been witnessing in a federation like Pakistan where there are unhappy constituent units in a lope-sided federation. The provinces186, which formed federation of Pakistan, could have established the greatest models of cosmopolitan nationalism if the elementary standards and legitimacies were correspondingly taken into consideration as we observe often done in the effective federations in the world, such as in Germany, Switzerland, and Canada etc.
Pakistan’s case is different where the solution would be on cosmopolitan parameters. Pakistan came into being in 1947; the identities that formed the country by uniting under one flag were independent units within Indo-Pak Sub-Continent; in Pakistan those were deprived of their basic rights to their language, culture, resources and political status. As Berlin terms this specific situation, in which he says that the “distinctive identities” can be just “lost” in (Berlin 1976).
Similarly, Nielsen too states that there is “a very deep need for self-identification and self- definition” in which the “historically situated” identities, if threatened, would gain populous significance; hence even in “future it will be a non-negligible part”.187
A true cosmopolitanism entails numerous facsimiles of citizenry and nationhood that hypothetically converges on the foundations of universal principles of social privileges and
186 The terminology for the constituent units globally has been used as provinces, states or cantons. 187 Nielsen, “Cosmopolitan Nationalism”, 455 81 moral restrictions.188 In liberal cosmopolitanism, we respect the multiplicity of kinds of communal, societal and ethno-cultural life; we do not want each person to turn out to join a uniform universal culture; which means that having metamorphoses inter and intra states is normal. These dissimilarities face definite moral restraints, as political institutes esteem fundamental rights.
In Europe, the phrase ‘post-national identity’ is quite common which emphasizes upon being European primarily than being German or French; similar can be the case of being South Asian also, though it is not as cohesively united and is strong as Europe is. The Latin America can be the example that one is Chilean, Cuban or Brazilian but on the whole, they are known as Latinos. In Nielsen’s words for them “being good Europeans is far more important to them than their being good Germans. Having such a sense of identity means to have a post- national identity”. 189
188 Bruce Robbins, Introduction part I: Actually, existing cosmopolitanism. In Pheng Cheah & B. Robbins, (Eds.), Cosmopolitics: Thinking and feeling beyond the nation, (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1998), p.1 189 Nielsen, “Cosmopolitan Nationalism”, 466 82
Chapter 3 Narratives of Nationalist Politics of Sindh— a Research Study in Historical Perspective
83
This research paper is an academic attempt to explore the possibilities of peaceful survival of the multi-classed and socially-diversified Sindhi society. Is Sindhi pluralism possible? This makes the pivotal question of this research/study discourse.
A critical appraisal of Sindh’s nationalistic narrative in the political history of Sindh has been made in this paper in order to trace out the research-oriented reply to the above-mentioned question. Side by side the current political situation of Sindh has also been threshed out fittingly in its historical perspective. Also, an attempt has also been made to divulge the point of view of Sindh at the international level in the light of thoughts and principles of those political thinkers and philosophers who have contributed to the field of nationalist politics.
Although huge material has been written on national politics of Sindh, there exists the need and importance of its critical appraisal from multiple dimensions. Specifically, there is necessity of writing on not only its trends and traditions but also analyzing the nationalist movements, national/political traditions and trends thoughts and notions in the light of the principles of the world’s nationalist politics. I have tried to put forward an investigative step, which other researchers can explore further from different angles of vision.
In fact, Sindhi nationalist politics can be described in true perspective in the light of modern theories on nationalism and ground realities. In order to make the overseas philosophers and researchers (working on nationalism) understand Sindh’s case, it is necessary to discern it firstly from the perspective of historical realities, and secondly from international theories and experiences.
This never means that the residents of Sindh speaking other languages should absolutely and finally be declared as aliens, or Sindhis may be presented as xenophobes or a nation suffering from national narcissism, but this research draws attention to the likelihood of multi-national population and multi-racial identity to become national beauty but the condition is that from the point of view of rights of Sindh all the groups residing in Sindh 84
(speaking different languages), confront the government and the centre and convince the centre that Sindh can follow to become the multinational and peaceful province with joint perk and unanimity.
Different researchers and political observers have written a lot on the rights of Sindh during the last decades but it is right time now to, first of all, understand Sindh’s case in the light of the most modern notions on nationalism in world, and secondly present it in very impressive way before Pakistani State and the world at large; without usurpation of the rights of aborigine Sindhis and distinction on the basis of race, religion or any other identity; such action may yield more rational and legitimate conclusions.
Since this research treatise is the first research/study of its kind about modern citizenship of Sindh case, based on national concept or multiracial nationalist sociology, it can be taken up as a new and comprehensive proposition about the stunt of Sindhi nationalism. This will be such feat, which will not only present the state of tolerant multi-class Sindh but will stimulate to explore the different possibilities of its better reformation. Besides it is expected that this research will present a type of scientific and reasonable point of view for multiracial groups and different political parties.
The narratives of Sindhi nationalism can roughly be divided into three eras. Describing that pattern, the nationalist proposition of Sindh will be suitably analyzed.
1. First Epoch: 1906-1936 (Struggle for Separation of Sindh from Bombay)
2. Second Epoch: 1937-1947 (Before Partition)
3. Third Epoch: 1947- 2010 (Squabble for national existence, share of water resources and claim of permanent majority).
85
In order to understand nationalistic narrative, it is necessary to understand the Sindh case from historical point of view meaning thereby that deep appraisal of economic, social and political background of the history so it becomes clear as to what were the provocateurs in the evolution of current nationalistic narratives of Sindh.
Generally, Sindh has been subjected to innumerable attacks by the foreigners, and the people of Sindh have fully resisted these in different times and forms and these series which commenced from the attack of Aryans who came from central Asia and passing from Sikandar Azam to Arabs, Arghoons, Tarkhans epochs -even though have changed its shapes- is continuing likewise till this period. However, in the recent past history of Sindh it seems to have been commenced from the conquering of Sindh by British in the year 1843 followed by its forcible attachment with Bombay presidency in 1847.
Opinion of Ozkirimli190 (2007) a writer on nationalist theory expressed in the first sentence of his book “Theories of nationalism “with reference to Elie Kedourie’s (1994) stand point that nationalism is the theory, which came into existence in Europe in the beginning of nineteenth century is not correct. On the contrary in my opinion the theories of nationalism had started evolving in the Sub-Continent in the middle of nineteenth century. An example of which is firstly conquering of Sindh by British followed by the reaction (though not immediate) over its annexation Bombay Presidency, which I shall call as the aeon of elementary shape of nationalist ascension.
Eighty-eight years of annexation of Sindh with Bombay was the forcefully imposed and the most difficult experience of Sindh, which G M Syed has penned down very clearly in his book “Sindh G Bambay khaan azadi”. After reading this book at least it becomes clear that we can trace the trends of conceptualization onwards to taking obvious shape of nationalistic narrative into the conquering of Sindh by British and its belligerent union with Bombay
190 Umut Ozkirimli,. Theoroes of Nationalism: A Criticial Introduction, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010).
86 presidency. On the whole, there seem the feelings of nationalism and joint condemnation of usurpation and trampling of rights and resources to be in the process of making.
In fact, any nationalist movement arises as a result of some reasons or stimulants or their logical conclusions a solid proof of which is that the nationalist movements come up in the suppressed and victimized nations. While if at all it takes place in cruel or overruling nations it takes the shape of chauvinism or fascism, which is why it is of utmost importance to understand the causes and ideology of nationalist movements under this principle.
G. M. Syed before going to into the details of the nationalistic point of view of the freedom of Sindh as mentioned in the beginning of his book titled “Sindh Ji Bombay khaan aazadi” (“Freedom of Sindh from Bombay”—current Mumbai) mentioned above, narrates the thousands’ years old history of Sindh, and puts forward his opinion from which the agedness of national history of Sindh can be assessed and that it has passed through many ups and downs, rise and falls and the crisis of the modern time is the continuity of that process.191
G. M. Syed referring to the history of five thousand years tells that the archaeological remains and stories of the old history stand testimony of Sindh’s historical status. “Mound of Aamri, archaeological remains of Kot-Diji; the articles found from the excavation of Mohan jo Daro are the living examples of this deposition”192 (Syed, 1989: 7). He tells that the culture and custom of the residents of Sindh have almost remained the same, the main components of which include modesty, approbation, patriotism, hospitality, broadmindedness, liberty and lack of nuisance.193
G. M. Syed elaborates how the patriotism of Sindhis for Sindh as a native land is implanted in the essence of its inhabitants. Their yearning for the motherland never lessened even by
191 192 Ghulam Murtaza Syed, Naeen Sindh lai Jadojahd, (New Fields Publications, 1989), 7 193 Ibid, 7 87 their long mercantile expeditions to India, Europe, Arabia, Sri Lanka and Iran etc. He further says: “Like the Ibex the, animal dwelling in hills whose eyes have been eagerly looking towards mountains despite residing elsewhere, they don’t feel comfortable out of Sindh. Their disquietude for the freedom of their homeland has never diminished. Like other countries this country too has been occupied several times by the foreign invaders which had been thwarting its political, economic and cultural freedom, but the patriotic people of Sindh have never missed a chance to strive for the liberation from the clutches of aliens. Although there has been dominance of Persians, Greeks, Arabs, Pathans, Moghuls and Englishmen for some time but the country of Sindh, Sindhi people and their culture are safe”194
The foregoing sentences indicate the old aspiration of Sindhis to keep Sindh as an independent state. Despite the attacks by the outsiders and the onslaughts of the strangers having caused deep impressions over the demography, economy and culture of the aboriginal Sindhis the intense desire of Sindhism is persistent in the indigenous Sindhis. The above-mentioned ideas of G. M. Syed point out the love of Sindhis for their homeland but in my opinion this affection could not be converted into consolidated, and such forceful strength, which would have at least bore basic rights of Sindh, if not freedom. The motherland for which G. M. Syed and other political and social leaders feel proud about having the history spread over thousands of years and feel gloomy over its subjugation.195
The joint planning to save this history of thousands of years have never remained with them, to check the foreign onslaught; save the culture and language; to undertake strong incitation, which may lead to proper prudence under which the state and the rulers of the time are pressurized and got agreed through bargain of conversation about the achievement of the rights. One can hardly notice such conjoined strong actions having been taken in this respect. On the contrary the glimpses of disarrayed meager powers of group-based politics can be seen dominating, which undoubtedly could not yield the substantial economic or
194 Ibid, 8 195 Ghulam Murtaza Syed, Sindhi Boli and culture, (Sindhica Academy, 1980), 31-32 88 political results. Some groups out of these talk of crippling the onslaught of strangers with massacre, while the other ones consider verbal condemnation as a great impetus.
The appropriate and desired evolution of nationalist movement is not in sight till today, although some groups have been carrying out such forward motion quite seriously; however, their success list of the legitimate rights obtained through dialogue and political pressure is trivial196.
From this perspective if the state has remained tyrant and mighty, the National political groups have also not remained powerful and impressive too with respect to political policies, strategies and prudence. Otherwise sixty-six years period is quite long time to take political movement to its zenith of achievements. During this period Bengal gained its freedom through fight for its rights but Sindh has not been able to get it legitimate rights till today. On the other side although civil society of Sindh is in the process of evolution, its powerful representation in the political front is negligible.197
According to the latest definition of ‘Shahriyati samaaj’, this is the translation of ‘Civil Society’ that includes all the knowledgeable and responsible people living in a homeland. The majority of Sindhi civil society have visibly attained the maturity with respect to national politics and nationalistic narrative, however, all the writers, intellectuals and majority of the civil society cannot avail their rights without a comprehensive and powerful political movement. At least there is no evidence of such big demand having been met with without some powerful peoples’ political movement. That is why much after the conquering of Sindh by the British, the power of nationalistic narrative commenced to be built but after creation of Pakistan till to-date it has not been able to gain peoples’ power for the achievement of the objectives due to getting entrapped in the state’s net. Not only that but the leaders of parties practicing nationalistic politics who outwardly seem to lead different nationalistic
196 Ibid, 15 197 Muhammad Ibrahim Joyo, Sindh: Betrayed, (Roshni Publications, 1980), 18; 33 89 groups having internal links with state agencies, which is the reason why such parties have played almost zero role in addressing the lawful problems of Sindh. On the contrary, they have caused colossal loss to the nationalist movement due to their certain extremist approaches and policies. As such the reason of stagnancy of the political and economic problems of Sindh and delay in the achievement of lawful rights is not only because of the denial of the state but also that the flag-bearers of nationalistic narratives have not confronted the state with the required political, administrative and public power.
Besides the political side if we talk of culture of Sindh, in my opinion there is deficiency of socio national power, for example due to continued different attacks Sindh has been absorbing the signs of the cultural practices, mores and civilization of new entrants in its own way of living that is why it is difficult to distinguish the original Sindhi language, customs, culture, traditions. Like other nations of the world Sindhi culture has also been changing its shape stage by stage. There is no nation in the world which has not passed through multiple quantitative and characteristic changes and has not been keeping on changing. This visage is natural and obviously Sindh could not escape it, but this countenance becomes horrible when due to sudden or systematic accidents the nations get ruined altogether with the result that they lose their very existence.198
Take the example of Sindhi language which has been changing from the Moghul days till today. The surprising instance is the replacement of the current Sindhi words by the stock pile of alien words. One will not hear any Sindhi speaking even a single sentence of Sindhi language in the pure form. Similarly, the shape of Sindhi language already has been changing due to invasions of Arabs and Persians. With this reference, the language has been permitted to get distorted vehemently due to the weakness of desired language planning and practical strategies. Likewise, the political parties have also been indifferent in this respect.199
198 Syed, Sindhi Boli and culture, 21-29 199 Ibid, 54 90
On the one hand there seems no clear and progressive role of Sindhi Language Authority to stop the fast intrusion of foreign words into Sindhi language. Mingling of Arabic and Persian words has become matter of past but the current incursion of unnatural and unbalanced English words have not been put to stop by the aforesaid authority. On the other hand there is no clear agenda with the political parties to check such alteration in the language.
As Sindhi language occupies the pivotal position in the nationalist narrative of Sindh, therefore, the changing of face of the language that fast is the proof of fact that although the leaders of nationalistic narratives have (to some extent) e put forward the stunt through their strong prudence and strategy but they have failed to take sound steps against the unnatural change in the language on one side and artificial alteration in the demography on the other side in order to block this abnormal shift.
Under the influence of globalization, the new terminology is coming into existence with the changing world and changes coming into being due to the new thoughts, inventions and researches. There seems neither any preparation by the political parties with respect to giving Sindhi shape to new vocabulary nor it is in their agenda, which proves their inability to save foreign belligerence in the perspective of a nation. Similarly, no steps have been taken to save the language in the capacity of the nation albeit if the political anecdotal of scattered political powers is viewed collectively the political and nationalistic narrative of Sindh will give a visible look. However, unfortunately on the one side this strong spectacular act is not the result of single political movement, and on the other side there seems no clear policy in this respect, which may give rise to the plural Sindhi narrative through lobbying with the groups and parties of Sindh speaking other languages.
3.1 First Epoch: 1906-1936 (Struggle for Separation of Sindh from Bombay)
If the chapter of the British colonials' attack on Sindh and their victory thereafter is taken a look at, it is said that while Charles Napier was returning from Afghanistan after his 91 ignominious and humiliating defeat, he conquered Sindh while passing through it so he could hide his bashfulness from British government and show them some sort of achievement, but he repented very much thereafter in the proof of which G. M. Syed writes that “Charles Napier regretted about it in heart of his hearts and ultimately sent a telegram to lord Ellen Borough 5 Governor and Viceroy of Sindh whose abstract was “I have committed the crime of conquering Sindh”. The colonials conquered Sindh in 1843 and annexed it to Bombay presidency in 1847 and Mr. Richard Keith Pringle was appointed as the first commissioner of Sindh. According to G. M. Syed it was for the first time in the history of Sindh that the government of Sindh was handed over to the governor of another province whereas prior to this Sindh had its own governors during the Mughal Empire which directly jointed to the central government of Delhi200
So says Hameeda Khuhro in the biography of Muhammad Ayub Khuhro (her father) that Sindh during its long history has been mostly independent, so far so that even being part of the great empires Sindh has been having its own governor and has been had autonomous, while being annexed to Bombay presidency in 1847 Sindh first time lost its freedom.201
G. M Syed writes: “After the conquest of Sindh Charles Napier called a Darbar in which he declared about returning the lands, giving awards and dresses of honor to the upper-class subject to the condition they swear fidelity to the English people. Against all the expectations such a crowd of people whose faithfulness to Mirs was a yesterday’s matter gathered at Hyderabad that instantly English officers got afraid of the rebellion and occupation of the city and in that fear, they deployed such a huge number of English soldiers that hundreds of them got sick due to excessive heat, but no conflict arose”202
Although give and take with Englishmen was easy at that time but it could not take place due to submissive role of Mirs. Despite Sindh had been paying tribute money (Daan^--a kind of
200 Syed, Naeen Sindh lai Jadojahd, 9-10 201 Hameeda Khuhro, Muhammad Ayub Khuhro: Juratmandana Siyasi Zindagi, (Sindhica Academy,2002), 129 202 Syed, Naeen Sindh lai Jadojahd, 10-11 92 tax) to Englishmen regularly why it was annexed to Bombay presidency, makes a question mark. G. M. Syed mentions the reasons the reasons mentioned below:
1. Bombay government had an eye on the rich resources of Sindh 2. Mirs and Pirs had pledged fealty to the rule of Englishmen 3. Mirs by nature were hunters and addicted to pleasure. They retarded the agriculture of Sindh due to their luxurious nature. When Englishmen restored and got released their jageers from government control they pinned hope in landlords that they will get the canals dug and cultivate these lands but their such wish was never fulfilled and that way the production from the lands got shrink, and on this basis Sindh was annexed to Bombay government declaring if as financially weak shire203
During 1868 the powers were transferred from governor of Bombay to the Commissioner Sindh under the “Sindh Act”. This can be termed as semi administrative autonomy under the British rule but the officers turned the landlords into vultures and Sindh became hunting ground for big officers and grazing ground for the lower formation204
To get education in Sindh was herculean task. Students had to stay for thirty years in Bombay to do the graduation with the result that only fifteen to sixteen students passed during three decades. Alongside the problem of education there was a nuisance of police too in the way that the police used to arrest the people on the instigation of landlords according to the list of enemies as had been provided to them205
In spite of Sindh having remained under the control of Englishmen and local rulers no sustainable and powerful movement could surface from 1847 to 1908. The commanding movement for separation of Sindh from Bombay government commenced only when Minto-Morley Reforms took place in 1909, whereby right was given to four members of
203 Ibid, 11 204 Ghulam Murtaza Syed, Sindh Galhaithi, (Sindhica Academy: New Fields Publications, 1992). 205 Syed, Naeen Sindh lai Jadojahd, 14 93
Sindh to get selected in central council of Bombay and fortunately two self-respecting Sindh-friendly national workers got elected out of which one was Seth Harchand Rai (page 7) and the other was Raees Ghulam Muhammad Bhurgri (page 8) both were members of congress and liberal in nature.206
During that period, both of the politicians and activists of Sindh took the issues like the nuisance of bribery, favoritism, theft of animals, construction of roads, improvement of irrigation channels, in their speeches.207 That way the presentation of nationalistic point of view of Sindh before the British government was given a start. This can be termed as the first era of nationalistic- political narrative and parliamentarian struggle. In December 1913 Seth Harchand Rai cleared in his speech that the consternation of Sindh will come to end only when Sindh’s annexation with Bombay is done away with. Sindh provincial conferences were held from 1908 to 1920 wherein the Commissionerate system in Sindh came under strong criticism. These conferences seconded Hindu Muslim unity, motivation of Muslims to join Congress, stress on making Swadeshi Tahreek powerful and described in details the devastation caused due to annexation of Sindh with Bombay.208
Although the numerical majority of Sindhi members increased with the Montagu– Chelmsford Reforms but the constitutional position of Sindh remained unchanged. On that Raees Ghulam Muhammad Khan Bhurgri wrote a letter to Sir George Lloyd, Governor of Bombay on 6th March 1920 wherein he demanded about giving the independent position to Sindh so the exclusive one man’s rule is avoided. According to Montagu–Chelmsford209 Reforms Sindh was not given the status of a separate province nevertheless such an entry was made in the new constitution whereby the governor
206 Ibid, 18 207 Ibid, 14 208 Ibid, 22, 32 209 Ibid, 9-12 94
general was authorized to issue an order by which he can create new province under the deputy governor.210 In the words of G. M. Syed: “Commissioner of Sindh was unfettered officer. Majority of landlords, jageerdars, Pirs (religious leaders) were subservient to the rulers of the time. Sindhi civil servants were mostly corrupt, opportunist and brazen. On the gesticulation of the commissioner one local assistant commissioner Khan bahadur Nabi Bux Muhammad Hussain with the help of his Muslim subordinates caught hold of one maulvi (religious leader) Faizul Kareem of Moro and getting fatwa (Religious exposition) against Khilafat (caliphate) of Turkey made justification for making Shreef Mecca to become caliph. Afterwards the officials were directed to get signatures of Pirs and maulvis. At last 95 persons signed on such fatwa on the instructions of Englishmen “ 211
Names of many prominent focal personalities from many districts of Sindh were included in the list mentioned above.
On one side peace congregations were formed and on the other side maximum use of media, (in whatever shape it was during that period) was made for example a newspaper namely “Sachaaee’ was published which was all praise for British government which was distributed free of cost in all human settlements. Sindh-friendly powers were not silent in this respect for example in repercussion to that Raees Ghulam Muhammad Bhurgri himself issued the newspaper “Al-Ameen” and got issued “Hindwasi “(whose editor was Dada Jethmal Parsram11) so their point of view could also be propagated.
Apart from that Shaikh Abdul Majeed Sindhi212 (page 12), who suffered imprisonment in the jai due to his link with Sindhi national movement, for the first time made a program for the education of Sindhi Muslims while in Sukkur jail in 1924 which was first published in installments in Al-Wahid newspaper and afterwards published in a book shape, in which the separation of Sindh from Bombay was openly expressed by him. Majority of
210 Ibid, 24,26 211 Ibid, 26, 27 212 Ibid, 12 95
the Hindus were in favour of the separation of Sindh from Bombay excepting the few ones.213
Unfortunately, at the time when the well-wisher of the separation of Sindh from Bombay Seth Harchand Rai, getting subjugated with general opinion of Hindus started giving statements against the freedom of Sindh like Jairamdas Dolatram (page 13). Jamshed Nusserwanji got published a detailed pamphlet in which he had mentioned that the separation of Sindh from Bombay was not only in favour of the Muslims but all and sundry (Syed, 1989: 34). The detailed content of this pamphlet is given on page 34-35 of Syed’s book titled “Sindh Ji Bombay khan aazadi” published in 1989. Not only that but a meeting of Hindus and Muslims was held on 18th June 1928. The minutes of meeting were published in daily Al-Waheed newspaper of 19th June 1928"214
On 26th May 1930 Khan Bahadur Muhammad Ayuob Khuhro (page 14) with the coordination of Syed Ali Muhammad Shah got published a book titled “sufferings of Sindh” in which the case about separation of Sindh was presented in befitting manner well supported by arguments. The abstract of this book and the salient features derived therefrom have been presented by Syed in his book referred to below. The extracts given in the book include the matter wherein the independent status of Sindh has been described with proofs from history“.215 (Syed, 1989: 58-75) In addition to this the annexures of Sindh Freedom Conferences which were held in Sindh have been included in Syed’s book “Sindh ji Bombay khan aazaadi”216
The following few points have surfaced from the stand point of view of Sindhi Nationalistic narrative:
213 Ibid, 9 214 Ibid, 49 215 Ibid, 58-75 216 Ibid, 85-111 96
(a) First joint political position of Sind: No progress could be made against the annexation of Sindh to Bombay in 1847 after the conquest of Sindh by Britishers in 1843, except mild verbal and written statements but Harchandrai Vishandas, Raees Ghulam Muhammad Bhurgri and the liberal congressmen commenced the regular movement about the separation Sindh from Bombay in the year 1908”217
Majority of enlightened Muslims and Hindus took part in the maneuver. Accordingly, it can be said that the end point of the struggle that commenced from 1908 was arrived in the achievement of the demand in the year 1936 about which G. M. Syed himself considers twenty-seven years epoch as the period of appropriate struggle for the separation of Sindh from Bombay leaving aside fifty-seven years of annexation, writes:
“Sindh became a separate province after twenty-eight years of struggle held from 1908 to 1936. Sir Lancelot Graham 16 became its first governor. Celebrations’ were held in the nook and corner of Sindh on Sindh’s getting provincial status. Meetings were held everywhere, prayers were held, Al- Waheed newspaper published special edition namely “Sindh Aazad”, poets sung the songs of rejoice and happiness in every house was showing its manifestation. New governor of Sindh arrived from Bombay to Karachi on 1st Aril, 1936 “218
(b) It was thus proved that so many political and social reformers played their role on the Nationalistic stand point of Sindh. Those who contributed in this respect are mentioned below in the orderly manner:
Seth Harchandrai Vishandas219 2. Raees Ghulam Muhammad Khan Bhurgri220 (Syed, 1989: 18). 2. Shaikh Abdul Majeed Sindhi221 3. Swami Govind Anand. 4. Jethmal Parsram. 5. Santdas Mangharam. 6. Vishnu Sharma. 7. Tikamdas wadhumal. 8. Rustom K Sidhwa. 9.
217 Ibid, 18 ; Khuhro, 60-61 218 Syed, Naeen Sindh lai Jadojahd, 93 219 Khuhro, 131 220 Syed, Naeen Sindh lai Jadojahd, 18 221 Ibid, 29 ; Khuhro, 131 97
Jamshed Nusserwanjee Mehta. 10. Seth Haji Abdullah Haroon. 11. Khan bahadur Ayub Khuhro. 12. Syed Ali Muhammad Rashdi. 13. Sir Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah (who through his speech motivated Sir Shahnawaz Bhutto in favour separation of Sindh despite the latter being on deathbed) “22214. Rewachand Thadhani. 15. Qazi Abdur Rehman. 16. Alama Abdullah Yousuf Ali 17. Professor Bhatija also wrote in newspapers that Sindh was affluent and will sustain itself.223Besides Shaikh Abdul Majeed Sindh and Muhammad Ayub Khuhro, Nusserwanji too replied to the opponents specifically Jairamdas Dolatram and provided full arguments in favour of separation of Sindh from Bombay.224
First time in 1925 Muslim League demanded separation of Sindh from Bombay presidency225 In the Round Table conference (based on Simon Commission Report in 1930) the justifications of separating Sindh from Bombay presidency included Sindhis to be culturally and ethnically different from the people of Bombay 226
Despite the movement of the separation of Sindh from Bombay had gained effective momentum at the last stage, the fact remains that the autonomous and independent position lost by Sindh at the time of conquering by Britishers could not be restored despite the passage of eighty-eight years. As a matter of fact, in 1936 Sindh was not given independent status but only that of a province with limited provincial autonomy under the India Act of 1935, meaning thereby that Sindh could not get even the status of limited autonomous province on exclusive basis but this was given as a result of general constitutional reforms.227
222 Syed, Naeen Sindh lai Jadojahd, 77 223 Ibid, 78 224 Ibid, 34-35 225 Zahid Chaudhry, Pakistan ki Siyasi Taareekh: Sindh- Masa’la e Khud-Mukhtari ka Aghaz, (Idara e Mutalia e Tareekh, 1994), 54-55 226 Ibid, 57 227 Khuhro, 166 98
If we take a look at the results of struggle about the separation of Sindh from Bombay it can be said that it created feelings and prudence of independent status or identity of Sindh and it gave rise to a point over which vast majority of insightful persons agreed. Secondly this scuffle caused the political training of the society and laid a foundation stone of political movement in Sindh. In my opinion, the main result of this struggle was the arousal of nationalist conception in the politics.
3.2 Second Epoch of nationalist narrative: 1937-1947 (Before Partition)
After the separation of Sindh from Bombay the second era of political crisis started when Sindh was given the status of province under British rule which ended in the inclusion of Sindh in Pakistan in 1947. In the subcontinent, the decade from the two elections held in 1937 and 1946 was such that although the provinces got limited autonomy under the centre- oriented British federal constitution, unfortunately Sindh fell prey of internal controversy and muddle during this entire due to political favoritism by British government with the result that Sindh could not get any political gain. Four governments were formed and dissolved during one decade.
Muhammad Ibrahim Joyo in his book “Sindh Muhinjey Kuwaabn ji” (Sindh of my Dreams) writes about the decade prior to the creation of Pakistan, “ten years from 1936-37 to 1946- 47 were the most critical years in the modern history of Sindh”. It was the decade in which Sindh got autonomy in the British raj and did away with English imperialism. The anguish of whatsoever occurred in that decade, remnant of which is still looms over the Sindh as the sabre of misfortune. 228 Joyo further elaborates:
The roots of this hard luck are pierced into election of legislative assembly of Sindh held on 1st February 1937, 21st January1946, and 9th December 1946.These elections were contested with lot of hopes and aspirations but every time they resulted in the
228 Joyo, 21 99
shape of unreliable results. On one side, there were the loving leader like G. M. Syed and his hopeful and cheerful associates whereas on the other side were the British governor and the seeker of sectional interests Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah (page 19) and his supporters-Hindus as well as Muslims, who for the sake of their greed and voracity; day to day rising needs and for the fulfillment of their plans for ruling over Sindh remained conjoined with each other. The elections were lost at the floor of assembly due to unbalanced dispute and pungency between these two teams.229
Sir Ghulam Hussain Hidayatualh always remained in the ogle of Mir Bandah Ali in 1940 and forth time remained under Khan Bahadur Soomro. In the meanwhile, he surfaced in 1941 as the Chief Minister of Sindh and lastly joined Muslim League after the termination of Khan Bahadur Soomro from the post Chief Minister of Sindh in 1942and became the CM of Sindh with the orders of Sir Hugh Dow governor of Sindh and favoritism of Jinnah and remained on this post up to 1947. He was bestowed upon the post of Governor of Sindh of the newly born Pakistan as a “reward” for the virtuous deed of getting successful the candidates of All India Muslim league through open rigging at the bogus elections of 1946. Sir Ghulam Hussain Hidaytullah retained this status till he breathed his last.230
Excepting only few out of sixty members of the Sindh assembly rest were business magnets, landlords or linked with ruling class and due to having the support of only four Muslim members Sir Ghulam Hussain Hidaytullah who hardly became the Chief Minister of Sindh. By offering ministries and other enticing offers and benefits for entrapping the members later on he approached the nationalist leaders of Sindh out of compulsion for seeking their support. G. M. Syed and his associates put some matters mentioned below to be given legal status as the condition for providing cooperation:
Transfer of agricultural land Abolition of jageerdari system
229 Joyo, 23 230 Joyo, 10-11 100
Fair scrutiny of tax over agriculture land, so the general well-being of bare-handed, studious people of Sindh who due to persecution of history were Muslims by virtue of their belief and were in overwhelming majority may become possible.
Solemn promises were made after lot of arguments but these were never implemented with the result that the government had to lose the favour of the supporters’ time and again and every new ministry coming into instance replacing the old one was formed with more alluring and bluffing promises.
The assembly consisting of self-centered pro-sectarianism Hindu capitalists and ever submitting Muslim landlords and jageerdars selected through the votes of Indian nationalist merchants refrained from the agricultural and social reforms because these did not service their interest. As such all the five ministries (of 17th April1937, 22nd March 1938, 18th March 1941, February 1941, August 1941) continually failed by emerging and dissolving one after the other due to the egoistic deeds and decisions of these opportunist and selfish groups. These groups remained lazy and indifferent about the well-being of the society on whose blood they had got fattened. That way all the five ministries kept on arriving at their logical ends.
Although the Sindh United Party of G. M. Syed and those who had resemblance of ideals with it jointly made the majority in 1937 election, but the British governor Sir Lancelot Graham sided away the majority party in contradiction to the democratic norms, and invited his tail wiggler Sir Ghulam Hussain Hidaytullah to form the government on the basis of the support of only four members231
28 members of Muslim League lead by Sir Ghulam Hussain Hidaytullah and 29 members of opposite group lead by G. M. Syed were declared successful but the British government’s governor of Sindh
231 Joyo, 10 101
Sir Francis Mudley offered Sir Ghulam Hussain to form the government. As soon as the Pakistan Resolution was presented in the legislative assembly of Sindh on March 3, 1943, Shaikh Abdul Majid Sindhi rejected the Sindh’s subordination and said that Sindh will remain sovereign.232 He also talked about the distribution of water and coastal belt. Muhammad Usman Soomro clearly said in his speech that Sindh’s annexation with Pakistan will be like throwing it into the ditch. Ayub Khuro sahib also talked about the right of self-determination. Voting was done among twenty-seven out of sixty members who presented themselves, twenty-four members voted in favour of and three voted against the resolution. It was made clear through speeches that Sindh needed sovereignty but the decision contrary to it was imposed in 1947233
Although apparently there seems no major national incitation during the decade described above but the parliamentary struggle by motherland friendly political leaders and assembly members carries lot of importance which G. M. Syed has reflected as “struggle for new Sindh234”. Therefore, that era of politics of Sindh can be termed as the continuation of the movement of separation of Sindh from Bombay.
3.3 Third Epoch: 1947- 2010 (Squabble for national existence, share of water resources and claim of permanent majority).
Independent state of Sindh which it lost due to the conquest by Britishers, due to which Sindh became recurring prey of difficulties and catastrophes, which unfortunately instead of coming to an end with its becoming the part of Pakistan aggravated further. Not only that but the threats to geographical unity, state of permanent majority, resources, language and social development faced by Sindh stage by stage after its becoming the part of Pakistan
232 Muhammad Ibrahim Joyo, Save Sindh Save the Continent, (Roshni Publications, 1980), 15 233 Muhammad Ibrahim Joyo. Sindh Muhinnjay Khuwabanji, (Roshni Publications, 1980), 30 234 Syed, Naeen Sindh lai Jadojahd, (New Fields Publications, 1989), 26 102 have no parallel in the history. This happened despite the forecasts of all these dangers having already been made by Muhammad Ibrahim Joyo in his world-famous book “Sindh Bachayo Khand Bachayo” (save Sindh Save the continent) 1945, and Pir Ali Muhammad Rashdi in his book “Faryad e Sindh” (outcry of Sindh) 1946 which continued appearing stage wise and are continuing till today.235
It looks as if new Sindh commenced taking its shape after creation of Pakistan. In Sindh, which had remained the cradle of harmony and peace, Liaqat Ali caused attacks over the homes and honor (ladies) of Sindhi Hindus in Karachi on 6th January 1948, made the natives of Sindh unprotected. Sindhi language was eradicated from Sindhi schools and forcibly replaced it by Urdu language236 (Syed. 1989: 186). The intolerance and hatred for Sindhis among Muhajirs/migrants was to the extent that the words of Liaqat Ali Khan, which he uttered about the culture and civilization of Sindh that “The education and culture of Sindh is that of camel and donkey drivers, how it can be protected” are the part of record.237
If an assessment of injuries inflicted on Sindh as a result of its becoming part of Pakistan is made the major losses mentioned below will be considered as specifically countable:
1. Although Sindhis like other nations of the work encountered innumerable ups and downs but they during their history of thousand years always remained in majority; the example of which is the census of 1943 according to which Sindh was the only province of the sub- continent whose population structure was such that the population of Sindhi speaking people in Sindh was 97 percent which after the passage of six decades has shrunk to around 60 percent and if the ambush of the intruders is not checked the Sindhis will turn into minority in their motherland within a decade or two for the first time in the history and a definite result of which will be that Sindhis will lose their historical right to rule over Sindh.
235 Joyo. Sindh Muhinnjay Khuwabanji, 43 236 Syed, Naeen Sindh lai Jadojahd, 186 237 Ibid, 187 103
2. Although Sindh has been saving its geographical unity till today but looking at the way the new provinces are coming into existence, commencement of blunt expressions of the evil designs by those who stare at the unity of Sindh with an evil eye, the present poor status of the National power of Sindhis, the anxiety/doubt about the infringement of the geographical united entity of Sindh is on the rise as a bitter truth 3. Although in comparison to the other languages of Pakistan Sindhi language has been saving and comparatively extending its existence but the severe challenges to the status, rectitude/composition and development of Sindhi language are not less either. The downfall of education in the government schools, driving away of Sindhi language from private schools the decline in the usage of Sindhi in the cities are the negative stimulants/trends that give rise to the serious concern that the way Sindhi language should have evolved has been jeopardized after the inclusion of Sindh in Pakistan?238 4. The natural resources of any nation get developed after the continued geographical and natural phenomenon taking place for millions of years together and the independent nations protect and take care of these resources in such a way that these are transferred to the succeeding generations quite safely. Despite the fact that the contribution of Sindh towards the national production of Pakistan presently comes to be 71% gas,57 % oil,94.8% coal(Pakistan energy book government of Pakistan 2012) and 71 % with respect to revenue generated by Sindh but these resources which took centuries in row for their development could not be utilized for the development of Sindh or Sindhis and the speed with which these are being used by the state of Pakistan makes it seem crystal clear that these resources of Sindh will lose their very existence in the coming three decades. 239 5. Although there do exist barani tracts like Tharparkar, Kaachho and Kohistan in Sindh but basically Sindh makes the region of riparian civilization whose existence is almost dependent on the water of river Indus, this is the very reason that Sindh is considered as the centre of the Sindhu sabheta (Indus civilization /customs and usages) in the history of the sub-continent. Indus river not only irrigates the soil of Sindh but the procreator of
238 Jami Chandio, Riyasat jo Buhran and QaumiSuwa, (Centre for Peace and Civil Society, 2006), 55 239 Naseer Memon, Sindh Ji Taraqi, Randakoon ain Rasta, (Sindhi Adabi Sangat, 2007).106-7
104
its entire history, civilization, culture, social and economic set up and way of life. The incident whereby sand is blowing in the width of once the mighty Indus or as it called in Arabic ‘Abaaseen’ mother of rivers has occurred with Sindh first time in its history only after Sindh became part of Pakistan.
The very existence of Sindh is dependent and conditional /pledged to river Indus and if its Indus river is ultimately snatched through construction of dams, canals, and barrages in its upper reaches, how will it be possible for Sindh to save its existence? This makes the basic question and the challenge as well.
Sindhis did not keep quit over the tortures they were subjected to and expected risks they had been scared of being part of Pakistan. History of their movements/protests since the creation of unit e.g. anti-One-Unit movement, Neelaam band kayo movement about the publication of voters list in Sindhi language, the cultural and academic movement for the protection of the language and identity of Sindh, even the agitations for the protection of the natural resources of Sindh, or against the division of Sindh which have been taking place during the last two decades is quite long.
The first brimming era of the nationalist movement of Sindh after partition was the multidimensional protest against the one unit in which the scholars, writers, poets, political workers and advocates fully participated.
Although One Unit was dissolved in 1970 but this period of 15-year struggle laid down the foundation stone of modern Sindhi national awakening and movement. The creation of sagacity about language, nationalism, culture and sovereignty took place at large scale during this era, which took different organizational and thought-provoking shapes in due course of time. It was beginning of the calamitous history of Sindh.240
240 Azizuddin Ahmed, in Jami Chandio, Sindh Case, (Centre for Peace and Civil Society, 2009), 70-71 105
Pakistan has been prey, to sort of imbalance since its very inception because on the one side the Punjabi cum Muhajirs/migrant ruling class had the hold over the power and the basic authorities and departments, whereas on the other side the East Pakistan was not only on thousand miles away from West Pakistan but was in majority from population point of view too.
Since Punjabi cum Muhajirs/migrants class had control over the state structure, as such they were afraid of the possibility of losing their superior and powerful state may the democracy prevail in the country. This was another main reason of avoiding democratic and constitutional governments during initial two decades and alongside this was the motive behind the creation of one unit in West Pakistan to create the parity basis with East Pakistan in the year 1955. On this basis defying the majority and democratic rule the two parts of Pakistan i.e. western and eastern ones were given political representation on the parity basis with which the practical denial to the preponderant and democratic position of East Pakistan was unavoidable241
One of the reasons of Sindh’s pioneering the strong opposition against one unit was that the struggle it had been making with respect to its sovereignty under British rule had almost lost it existence as well as separate identity in 1955 after the creation of Pakistan in the reaction to which such cultural and political movement came into existence which not only resisted against one unit but laid the foundation of modern political wisdom. Active role of thousands of literary persons, poets and social activists including Shaikh Abdul Majeed Sindhi Comrade Hyder Bux Jatoi, G. M. Syed, Rasool Bux Palijo and Shaikh Ayaz is seen in favour of this movement.242
Making the West Pakistan a single integral unit had become the dream of General Ayub Khan. Imposing one unit was not that easy, as such special preparations were made for this
241 Chaudhry, 130 242 Joyo, Sindh Muhinnjay Khuwabanji, 29 106 action. Khwaja Nazimudin {Bengali} was removed despite clear majority and Muhammad Ali Bogra (who was then the ambassador of Pakistan in America) was brought as prime minister of Pakistan. Abdul Sattar Pirzado, who was running Sindh Government objected to this. Everyone expected that Sindh will strictly reject this action that is why more preparation was needed to confront Sindh. Muhammad Ayub Khuhro was made use of to support Bogra and Ayub khan. Ayub played this role in cooperation with Ali Muhammad Rashdi according to the wishes of the rulers. Al-Waheed newspaper was banned without giving any notice and so many such dailies and weekly magazines were banned so as to disable them, and build collective opinion against one unit. Ghulam Mustafa Bhurgri and Ghulam Ali Talpur type of persons were arrested so they could not go to assembly. In addition to that the location of Sindh assembly was moved from Karachi to darbar hall inside the Sessions court Hyderabad. Some were suppressed the others were made to keep quiet by offering them favours.243
Prime Minister Bogra called the meeting but discussion was not permitted. Khairpur state offered instant support whereas Bahawalpur State was a bit difficult; those who were found difficult to tackle were dismissed. In Sindh G. M. Syed, Comrade Hyder Bux Jatoi, Ghulam Muhammad Laghari, Sindhi Adabi Sangat, Hari Haqdar Organization and few journalists and writers were included in those who were running campaign against one unit at last one unit was imposed on 14th October 1955, which was illegal from all angles of vision. It was against the resolution passed in the general session of 1940 in which the words independent states were used, resolution of 3rd March 1943 passed by Sindh Assembly narrating sovereign state of Sindh. One unit was dissolved by Yahya Khan in 1970 considering it as injustice against the provinces
Jami Chandio writes: “8 out of 110 members of the then Sindh assembly remained either absentees or detainees. 98 members voted in favour and 4 voted against it. These four members were Abdul Hameed Khan Jatoi, Ghulam Mustafa Khan Bhurgri, Pir Ilahi Bux and Shaikh Khursheed Ahmed, whereas Seen G. M. Syed was already put under detention. Any way the massive stroke on the entity of Sindh was caused by its own
243 Khuhro,159 107
custodian /guardian house/assembly244 (Chandio11 December 2013, Daily Kawish, Syed 1989:234-235.)
On one side Z. A. Bhutto crossing all the limits said to the extent that if Shah Latif would have been alive today he would have supported one unit and garlanded Ayub Khan (Syed 1989:234-235). There were two main reasons for imposing one unit firstly that the ruling class who were linked with Punjabi Muhajir Military bureaucracy had to looting from the smaller provinces secondly, they were scared of /irritated by the numerical majority of Bengal.245
The multi-dimensional struggle began from the platform of Soofiya e Sindh or Sindhi Adabi Sangat, Sindh Hari Committee, Rooh Rihaann for the protection and patronage of the Sindhi language, literature and the entity of Sindh.246 Sindhi Shaamoon, Jashan-e-Latif and the gatherings of Bazm-e Soofiyaa-e Sindh were the extra ordinary fronts of struggle of Sindh. It is hard to find any patriot, literary person, poet, Scholar, national activist including Comrade Hyder Bux Jatoi, G. M. Syed Rasool Bux Palijo, Qazi Faiz Muhammad, Shaikh Ayaz, and Shaikh Abdul Majeed Sindhi who was not a part of this group. This period was unique from the point of view of building of national wisdom and unity. The foundation of literature and politics of confrontation were laid during his period. It was the powerful struggle of patriots, literary persons, poets, Scholars, and national activists which resulted in the building of the national consciousness in the younger generation of Sindh, the struggle of 4th march made its appearance and the foundation of the powerful student politics were laid. Hundreds of student leaders including Yousuf Laghari, Yuosuf Talpur, Lala Qadir, and Iqbal Tareen are the product of this skirmish.247
244 Syed, Naeen Sindh lai Jadojahd, 234-235; 245 Chaudhry, 290-291 246 Aziz Shaikh. One Unit: A Dark Chapter. http://www.paklinks.com/gs/pakistan-affairs/86047-pakistans-one- unit.html accessed on Dec 26, 2013 at 9:15 pm on this website 247 Syed, Naeen Sindh lai Jadojahd, 70 108
In fact, the multi-pronged scuffle against one unit trained the Sindhi society quite adequately with respect to national intelligence and accelerated the national altercation and momentum but unfortunately this national prudence could not take the shape of any creditable political organization.248
In fact, the performance of Bhutto sahib was not positive in this state of affairs. His specific role in the massacre of three million persons was in the way that at the occasion of hunting at Larkana’s famous lake Drigh Bala a plan was formulated that Bengalis will never be permitted to govern let it require killing of the people.249 Following are the phases which enabled the successful imposition of one unit:
Refusal of Wali Khan over the issue of the separate currency and reserve bank for each province which was against the principles of NAP250 (Syed 1989:279; Syed 1980: 65) Mujeeb asked Syed that Bengal will stand firm on its strong proposition, there is centralism and tout like approach in Sindh, and as such he may go abroad because he will also get affected with the action in Bengal. Agreeing to this Syed went to Madina for visiting the shrine.251 General Niazi fixed the stamp on the separation of Bengal by surrendering cap, flag and arms on 16th December 1971252 Bhutto sahib managed the formation of his government by ensuring the defeat in Bengal through the tearing away the Poland’s resolution253 (Syed 1989:280). Bhutto decorated his chest with the medal of world’s first chief martial law administrator on 20th Deember1971 and that way the Bengal which was the strong supporter of Sindhis, Balochs and Pathans got separated/detached254
248 Chandio, Jami, (Dec. 11, 2013). Daily Kawish. 249 Syed, Naeen Sindh lai Jadojahd, 277 250 Ibid, 279; Syed, Ghulam Murtaza. Sindhi Boli and culture, (Sindhica Academy, 1980) 251 Syed, Naeen Sindh lai Jadojahd, 279 252 Ibid, 279 253 Ghulam Murtaza Syed, Sindhi Boli and culture, 280 254 Ibid. 109
Although MRD movement which was held country wide and aimed at the restoration of democracy but Sindh’s participation and role in that caused the Sindh’s nationalistic point of view more conspicuous and following three propositions of Sindhi nationalism surfaced out in this scenario:
1. G. M. Syed’s stand point about the separation of Sindh from Pakistan.255 2. Rasool Bux Palijo’s notion (21st September 1930) about national self-determination remaining a part of Pakistan 3. Comrade Hyder Bux Jatoi’s stand about reforms at sectarian level.
Out of these three points of views G. M. Syed’s point of view of Independence of Sindh and that of Rasool Bux Palijo about achievement of rights of Sindh within Pakistan have remained strong.
3.4 Political Evolution of Sindhi Nationalism-Review of Different Narratives:
Although the powerful foundation of political wisdom of Sindhism were laid during the period of struggle of separation of Sindh from Bombay but this acumen developed in administrative and thoughtful shape during the multidimensional struggle by knowledgeable literary persons, writers, poets, political as well as social workers against one unit, albeit it made its stage wise appearance in different theoretical shapes from the decade (1950 to 1960), although one of the intellectuals of Sindh Muhammad Ibrahim Joyo had clearly described the national wisdom of Sindhism even before partition very clearly in the perspective of then changing political conditions of India through his world famous book “Sindh Bachayo Khand Bachayo” (Save Sindh Save the Continent) and had made mention of its distinctive features too but in fact G. M. Syed was the first scholar and political leader
255 Ghulam Murtaza Syed, Sindhu Desh Cho ane Cha lai, (Sindhica Academy, 1990), Pg. no 29; Ghulam Murtaza Syed, Pakistan hanay tutan ghurjay, (New Fields Publications, 1997), pg.no 17 110 who laid down strong foundation of Sindhi nationalism in Sindh , by writing unique books like “paigham Latif”, “Sindhu g sanjaah”, “Sindhi Soorma”, “Sindhi Boli aen culture” and the treatises trying to make it clear that historically Sindhis were a nation who has its own civilization, culture, language, joint history and common interests.256
Although soon after the partition G. M. Syed had become disgusted and had thoughtfully concluded that this was not the country for which Sindh had passed the resolution at Sindh assembly in 1943 about becoming its part.
Despite that he had been taking active part in national politics through the platforms of NAP and others but after the independence of Bengal in 1971 or in other words the mishap of forcibly sorting out Bengalis by pushing them away he became totally frustrated with respect to the state of Pakistan and ultimately coined the idea of Sindh’s separation/independence from Pakistan by writing the books like “Pakistan haanen tutan ghurjey” {Pakistan should break now} and ‘Sindhu Desh chho aen chhaa laae” (Sindhu Desh why and what for) which adopted an organizational shape in the form of “Jeay Sindh Tahreek” (movement of long live Sindh) which has now been divided in many groups and sectors ,despite the fact that all of them they all fully agree to the thought/notion given by G. M. Syed257
3.5 Nationalist Narrative of G. M. Syed
The independence of East Pakistan or in other words coming into being of Bangladesh caused radical/basic effects over the politics as well as ideas of G. M. Syed. As he was among the founders of Pakistan and the negation of the resolution of 1940 was being done right in front of his eyes, and the Panjabi cum Muhajirs/migrants ruling class had rendered the Bengalis, Balochs, Pashtuns and Sindhis as their slaves from political and economic perspectives as a
256 Joyo, Save Sindh Save the Continent, 37 257 Syed, Sindhu Desh Cho ane Cha lai, 16-29 111 result of which surfaced the logical conclusion of the division of Pakistan and independence of Bangladesh.
As a result of this entire outrage G. M. Syed, during that period had arrived at the conclusion that staying with Pakistan will now be severe blow over the remaining subjugated nations that is why in his books “Pakistan haanen tutan ghurjey” {Pakistan should break now} and ‘Sindhu Desh Chho aen Chhaa Laae” (Sindhu Desh why and what for) written after 1971 not only demand the geographical independence of Sindh from Pakistan but laid the foundation of his political thought on the following points258
1. National Theory: “The residents of Sindh make a separate nation on the basis of language. culture, historical customs and traditions and are entitled to make decisions about their political, economic and cultural independence along with their progress and wellbeing on the basis of the right of the self-determination applicable to the nations”.
2. Sindhu Desh: “Sindhu Desh has remained a separate country in the sub-continent since thousands of years and like other countries of the world it has the right to take decision about its future”
3. Language of Sindh: “Sindhi has remained the language of Sindh from times immemorial. It the most ancient and rich language of Pakistan and on that account, it is fully entitled to become the national and official language of the country.”
4. Constitution making of the country: “Prior to understanding this problem, it is to be decided whether the constitution will be made on the basis of one nation or four nations. According to the first version/theory, Sindhis
258 Ibid. 112 being in minority will become dependent/ indigent on the majority provinces, whereas according to the second version no constitution can be passed without the consent of Sindhis”
5. Sindhi Culture: “Sindh has the history of last four thousand years on the basis of which they have built their national conduct and culture. These make our national heritage. Absorbing in the culture of newly arrived persons at the cost of our own will amount to self-rejection.
3.6 Nationalist Narrative of Hyder Bakhsh Jatoi
Alongside G. M. Syed another political leader of that period who has played important role in the political and national wisdom of Sindhism was comrade Hyder Bux Jatoi, who had resigned from the post of deputy collector considered as an elevated government service and created Sindh Hari Committee. Although national thought of comrade Hyder Bux Jatoi was based on the national wisdom of Sindhism whose basis was the same but as comrade Jatoi was striving about segmental issues, as such it can be said that comrade Hyder Bux Jatoi presented the idea of parallel/joint movement of national and sectional issue.259
Whereas the emphasis of his contemporary G. M. Syed was only on national issues and he did not give due importance to the sectional question at this stage.
It was due to the struggle comrade Hyder Bux Jatoi that an organization namely “Sindh Hari Committee” came into existence in Sindh as a result of which Sindh Tenancy Act was passed in 1950. Prior to comrade Hyder Bux Jatoi, Shaikh Abdul Majeed Sindh, G. M. Syed Jamsetji Nusserwanji, Comrade Abdul Qadir, Jethmal Parsram, and others had run the “Hari Haqdar Movement in 1930, but the movement of comrade Hyder Bux Jatoi proved to be more successful in comparison to the movement of others.
259 Jatoi, C. H. B. “Statement of the accused”, Sindhica Academy, (1980), 13 113
The second phase of Hari Tahreek remained vital from 1938 to 1945 whose active members included Qadir Bux Nizamani, Maulvi Muhammad Muaaz, Comrade Sobho and others. It can be said that this was the third phase of the movement which was run under the leadership of comrade Hyder Bux Jatoi.
Same precedent was progressed further in due course of time by Rasool Bux Palijo another scholar of Sindh whose thought, wisdom, organizational abilities and struggle gave new thoughtful, theoretical and practical dimensions to Sindh’s national politics.
3.7 Nationalist Narrative of Rasool Bux Palijo
The main points included in the thought and struggle of Rasool Bux Palijo get surfaced in his book” Subuh Theendo” (Day will Dawn). In his opinion, the fight against Wadera Shahi feudalism is the essential part of the national movement. In all the articles of the aforesaid book he makes crystal clear he is all about.260 The following points of his book elaborate the Sindhi nationalistic proposition:
The feudalism is very root of Muhajirs/migrants cum Punjabi imperialism for example one unit would not have been possible without the support of feudalists– feudalism does not permit Sindhis to confront purloiners and weaken Sindhis by causing interference on behalf of enemies. In fact, the major problem of majority of Sindhis is internal disease i.e. feudalism and the struggle of Sindhis will remain weak till it comes to an end, that is why national and anti-federalism movements should go hand in hand (Tahreek March 1973). Urban Sindhi will not be able to save his cities until he confronts the federalism considering it as an enemy. In the view of Rasool Bux Palijo Sindhi nation is the
260 Rasul Bakhsh Palejo. Subuh Theendo, (Awami Kitab Ghar,1973), 17 114
combinational of reversals on one side there is Sindhi nation and on the other side is Sindhi common man. Referring to the science of nature he says that we learn from it that internal conflicts are more dangerous that the external ones. Sindhi nation should first of all solve its permanent problems like poverty, looting by and cruel landlords as well as the harbourers /protectors of thieves and dogmatism in rural areas. He is of the view that national movement will not succeed without rooting out feudalism. The national movement of Sindh cannot be termed as national movement in its true sense until jagirdari system is brought an end and the problems of the ploughmen are not solved. In the opinion of Rasool Bux palijo at present only the small problems of haarees that they face like evacuation from land, imposing fake debts, non- implementation of agricultural laws, involvement in false cases and problems, ban on the education of their children should be solved. That is why the enemy of haaree cannot be treated as Sindhi and that those leaders who do not support haarees are not true representatives of national politics261 The struggle should be people based otherwise it will result in failure. In his opinion only small portion of literate Sindhi had been contriving against one unit and the rustic person was least concerned with it but when this resistance turned to be against federalism we noticed lacs of Sindhis getting joined in Hyderabad on 4th March 1969. PPP’s basic slogan was against this feudalism but quite soon they lay off that cloak/gown. Previously there were plenty of people followers of Bhutto but now the PPP has taken a u turn. 3. Punjabi cum Muhajirs/migrants’ progressive ones cause fissures in the stand point of Sindh, they cause the Sindhi laborer disgusted against the national struggle. They don’t keep the problems of Sindh in their agenda (Tahreek March 1973).
3.8 Common Denominators of the National narrative of Sindh’s politics
261 Ibid, 23-24; 31-32 115
As we have described above, the national politics of Sindh and its thought and wisdom has sprouted, grown and undergone evolution in different shapes during last one and half centuries. Resultantly its thought and wisdom related practical shapes/ pictures are also different, nevertheless some common points are found in the different political traditions which have arrayed common political narrative through a long and contiguous process.
+The provincial autonomy of Sindh has been the central argument the Sindhi nationalists have been presenting before the centre with the argument that Sindh has constantly been an independent state, it must have provincial autonomy, and right on its resources and rule.262 The key points and the basis of this common narrative can be described as under:
1. Sindh is the eternal, permanent, everlasting motherland of Sindhis and the historical right over Sindh exclusively belongs to Sindhis only 2. Permanent majority of Sindhis in Sindh should be protected so the historical right of Sindhis to rule Sindh gets secured. 3. Sindhi language is the national language of Sindh and Sindhis and it should officially be given the status of national language of Sindh. 4. The cities and all natural and economic resources of Sindh like cash/capital, oil, gas and coal etc. are the national property of Sindh and Sindhis and the final and historical right of Sindhis over these should be accepted
5. The individuals and groups residing in Sindh and speaking other languages are Sindhis who believe Sindh as their mother land and consider themselves from political aspect, as part of Sindhi nation and practically strive for the national rights of Sindh
262 Joyo cited in Chandio, Sindh Case, 4-25; JamiChandio, Tabdeeli a Ja Muharik and Sindh jo Aindo. (Central for Peace and Civil Society, 2007), 360. 116
6. Feudalism and jageerdari system are the main reasons of the abjectness, backwardness and subjection of Sindhis and the relief of Sindh are impossible without the rule of Sindhi people over Sindh. 7. Indus river is the creator and guarantor of the history, culture, economy so any sort of dacoity/robbery to it in the shape of embankment, canal, and barrage will be an attack on the nationhood of Sindh.
117
Chapter 4 Relation between Cosmopolitan Nationalism & Ethnocentric Nationalism
118
The cosmopolitan nationalism and the foundations of ethnic or cultural nationalism are not only different from each other but to some extent those are contrary also. Ethnic or cultural nationalism means a group of people that historically live in a territory, owns the same language, and have similar ethnic or cultural relations inside that particular territory. Whereas on the other hand the heart of cosmopolitan nationalism is not having similar color, ethnicity or culture, but it is a collective, rather communal social interest that is based on citizenship.
The notion of ethnic or cultural nationalism often surfaces in agrarian or feudal society. In such society structure of nationalism bases itself on historicity, collective language, race or cultural dimensions. While on the other hand cosmopolitan nationalism mostly is production of industrial, urban and professional society. In that scenario ethnic relations of individuals, color, race, cultural ways of living and languages can be unique and different from each other. Regardless of that distinctiveness they cohabit the territory in the form of a group or community, and connect with each other based on citizenship, individual freedom, professional relations and collective social interests.
Despite these being two different and conflicting ideas, both can have one converging factor that can bind them around the collective social interest. As a matter of fact, people can have conflicting interests despite having similar ethnicity, culture, as happens in class system, in which despite similar cultural and linguistic ties rich and poor cannot cherish similar interests. While poor and oppressed classes can have similar interests irrespective of their distinct cultural identities. Such partial compatibilities, potentially, could be strong uniting factors—and equivalent status in citizenship, human and social rights, civic facilities, equal economic opportunities, rule of law, good governance, gender justice, developmental opportunities, environmental interests, including food security—which may take the diversity along peaceably, forbearingly in the shared communal habitat. These factors can tie ethnic, religious and other cultural groups at one habitation, where they not only conjointly coexist but also take care of each other’s interests. Not only that, they can 119 cooperatively run movements to get their communal rights from the state and lay collective pressure by echoing in one voice.
Culture is basically a dynamic phenomenon, which requires continuous change and development. Its forms keep on changing. In agricultural and feudal societies culture means attire, food habits, collective rituals, social and cultural attitudes and way of living. Nonetheless bonding homogeneity can also take place among diversified cultural identities, however, that can be based on industrial, urban and economic commonalities which can be founded on civic principles, civilizational values, professional ethics, individual rights and respect for individual freedom. Therefore, cultural and cosmopolitan nationalism can form a common tradition, which can independently flourish like any other bonded identity.
There is a principle which may, hypothetically, do away with contradictions between cultural and cosmopolitan nationalism. The notable factor which can bridge the ideas of cultural nationalism with cosmopolitan nationalism is creating a congenial socio-political and economic environment without keeping diversified inhabitants’ group identity insecure and deprived. In such scenario, the newly-entered groups and the natives enjoy legible individual as well as group freedoms in return of duly respecting each other’s rights. This could be probable only when migrated cultural minorities and natives acknowledge the diversity and accept each other’s culture and rights by valuing significance of the territory and its history.
4.1 Highlighting the Issue
Most of the works on nationalism on discovering innovative outlooks, have drawn at- consideration that something interesting happens in the societies where “economic development and political modernization” takes place. This sweeping hypothesis proposes that if fiscal progress was enthused in the under-developed states, and their egalitarianism is completely reinstated with enhanced political dialog, there the emergence and growth of “new national identities” is inevitable. However, to do justice in that situation it is mandatory 120 to value and understand the expressions of racial and cultural nationalism that is both as class-based issue and as “linguistic or religious conflicts”.263
No matter how much societies of the world are modernized, ethnicity or ethnic identity will continue to sustain and flourish despite minor alternations, which it assimilates during the processes of social change and modernization. As Asaf Hussain views that the process of modernization, instead of “eliminating ethnic group identity”, modernize(s) it.
While internally the cohesion of federating units or nation states in Pakistan which would never have been a harder venture if were arranged in a lawful and just manner.
4.2 Pakistan context
After Pakistan’s coming into existence the new states, which confront crises, often inspire the “political and social scientists” and urge them to design theoretical schema for investigating their circumstances. There are kinds of homogenizations, for example some are centripetal and some are centrifugal. The idea of uniting diversified identities under one umbrella may base on attractive political notions, such as peaceful coexistence, “political development”, nation-building and political integration”.264 Theoretically for the case of Sindh strong analogies can be drawn from such notions; hence the unresolved status of the conflict is due to lack of reviewing the global experiences and success stories of culturally and politically diversified societies, such as the USA, Switzerland, Germany, Nigeria etc.
Why Pakistan found it complex to create a sense of nationality after 1947 and form a broader national identity by duly acknowledging sub-national uniqueness? 1971 debacle witnesses to that cause as a strong repercussion of that failure. According to Tambia (1996), in case of Sindh and Balochistan also, the ethnic conflict and Baloch resurgence emerged in 1970s also.
However similar sentiment towards one’s culture has been quite absent in Punjab. According to Ayers there has been widely known acceptance within Pakistan that Punjabi is the
263 Asaf Hussain. “Ethnicity, National Identity and Praetorianism: The Case of Pakistan”, Asian Survey vol.16 no. 10 (1976): 918 264 Ibid. 918 121 language of insignificant and unimportant culture, hence throughout the history from the beginning it did not get “official recognition”, and neither was raised any voice by the language holders; it was an anomaly in that particular scenario when other provinces were aggressively voicing for their cultural rights.265 For example, most of the creative writers, such as poets and fiction writers etc. preferred to write in Urdu instead of Punjabi (such as Iqbal, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Ahmed Nadim Qasmi, Bano Qudsia, and Amjad Islam Amjad.)
4.3 Sindh Case
Sindh’s case is particularly relevant to this debate and strives for a justified and amicable way forward. As a matter of fact, the proclamation of provincial nationalities and identities has been taken in Pakistan as the issue of “centrifugal forces” constantly in the risk of turning out of control.266 The issue of nationalism of provinces is the major internal problem without resolving which Pakistan cannot move ahead on the pace of development and progress.
However, the issue of nationalities or nation states is not particular to Pakistan. Also, in academia, in last few decades especially, we see unbelievable transformation in the study of state nationalism. A number of experts of the subject have contributed novel dimensions to the subject, such as Eric Hobsbawm's Nations and Nationalism since 1788 (1990), Ernest Gellner's Nations and Nationalism (1983), John Breuiy's Nationalism and the State (1982), P. Chatterjee's Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World, J. A. Armstrong's Nations Before Nationalism (1982), and Anthony Smith's, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (1986), (Anderson, 1936).
4.4 Punjab Share Plus Islamization
In Pakistan, Punjab took major share of resources and opportunities, so much so that the dissatisfaction among the provinces other than Punjab is understandable; the statistics portray that the “Punjabis have composed as much as 80 percent of the Pakistani Army and
265 Alyssa Ayees. “Language, the Nation, and Symbolic Capital: The Case of Punjab”, The Journal of Asian Studies 67 no. 3(2008): 917-946. 266 Ayres. “Language, the Nation, and Symbolic Capital: The Case of Punjab”, 917-946 122
55 percent of the federal bureaucracy, according to the figures as of 1987”.267 (Samad 1996, 67)
Hence the seizure of bigger and unjustified chunk of resources and institutional privileges indicates to the Punjab’s hegemony over the other provinces. Therefore, the Punjab hold the responsibility of Post-Bhutto Pakistan scenario, which was marred by over a decade-long military rule later conjoined with Islamization of Pakistan as a strategic necessity in the Cold- War version of Islam.268
It was a two-way jeopardy for the people of Pakistan that internally military was ruling and on the borders the imprudent state was nurturing future calamity for the country, region and the world.
4.5 Impact of Internal and external wrongs
General Zia’s Afghan Jihad took the country to the unfathomable and unique conflicts, and owing to that ill-designed venture Pakistan earned global recognition as proponent of the newer version of Jihadism in the world. According to Ayesha Jalal the islamization of Pakistan at the borders and constructing the paradigm of uniformity within the borders by singling out the Urdu as the sole official language risked the country’s security.269 It triggered severe tension at the border and triggered cultural conflicts internally—both the investments reached fruition.
Therefore, besides the role of Pakistan in Afghan Jihad, the uniformity paradigm of Ayub Khan’s era was another wrong strategy that caused a serious jeopardy to the security of Pakistan. The ethnic conflict in Sindh, which triggered as the country emerged, over the period instead of resolving intensified by multiplying the stakeholders. The long-sustained
267 Samad, Yonus. “Pakistan or Punjabistan: Crisis of National Identity.” (1995). Quoted in Gurharpal Singh and Ian Talbot eds., “Punjabi Identity: Continuity and Change”, South Asia Books, 1996, 61–86 268 Ayres. “Language, the Nation, and Symbolic Capital: The Case of Punjab” 923. 269 Ayesha Jalal. “Conjuring Pakistan: History as Official Imagining”. International Journal of Middle East Studies vol. 27 no.1 (1995): 73–89. 123 bloody conflict and terroristic politics from diverse stakeholders has kept the political environs of the province upset to this date.
4.6 Nationalism is pre-Partition
The needs to be mentioned here that the sentiment of nationalism in Sindh, Balochistan and Pakhtunkhwah especially has not been just post-partition scenario. Because the endorsement of ethnic identities in the then NWFP, Balochistan and Sindh has a long history in colonial India. The British colonials ran heavy campaigns against the Pashtun tribes such as Mehsuds, Momands, Afridies, Waziris and others. The campaigns which were heavier in human and other resources ran between 1849-1947. In this approximately century-long curbing efforts of the British, enhanced Pashtun nationalist sentiments. Asaf Hussain states:
The campaign against the Mahsuds in 1919 and 1920 cost more than a million pounds and involved more than 80,000 troops. A special North- West Frontier Inquiry Committee recorded in 1922 that the aim of the British Frontier policy was the security of India and through their control of the tribes to secure life and property in that region. The Pathans therefore remained outside the pale of modernization and maintained a strong ethnic identity.270
4.7 Nationalistic Sentiment Before Partition
Same was the case of Balochistan in which Bugti and Marri tribes similarly troubled the British; In Sindh Hur movement was against the British Raj- the Hurs fought with the British colonials, so did the last rulers of Sindh the Talpurs as well. The crushing strategy of the colonials made Sindhis, Balochis and Pathans quite conscious of their ethnic identities. While Punjab’s case was quite different; the Punjabi elites who enjoyed patronization and gifts of lands given by the British, reinforced colonial rule and served their interests. Hence at the time of creation of Pakistan the Punjabi elite had become quite influential and authoritative that they independently could have ruled over the newly-created country—Pakistan. The
270 Asaf Hussain. “Ethnicity, National Identity and Praetorianism: The Case of Pakistan” 922 124 first power demonstration appeared in the form of recruitment of soldiers from Punjab. According to Hussain:
“The British Indian Army was "Punjabized," as almost 50% of Muslims in it were Punjabis who had proved their loyalty and valor in the First and Second World Wars. Thus, while the Hindus served the colonialists through the Indian Civil Service, the Punjabi Muslims served them as the guardians of the British Indian Empire.271
4.8 Cause of Pakistan issue- why Separatist movements
Hence in post-partition scenario these conflicts should have been seen in historical context.
In the nutshell, the national crises in Pakistan has been triggered by the disregard the rulers of Pakistan nurtured against the significance of the cultural identities and right to rule of the provinces that consented to join hands to creating a new state named Pakistan. Hence, needless to mention that one of the prime triggering factors of making of Bangladesh was intolerance of the rulers towards the national/ethnic identity of Bengalis; in which the later contributions were made by “foreign intervention, economic disparity”, and “geographical distance” as well. It was quite unfortunate that the provinces especially Sindh, and Bengal especially that keenly agreed to form a new state by joining it, began separatist movements; while emergence of such movements in Balochistan was quite understood as the princely states of Balochistan simply joined Pakistan in 1948 on condition that the centre would control only defense, currency, foreign relations, and finance, and the province otherwise would have provincial autonomy.
The triggering of the separatist sentiments, if were handled intelligently, could have been assuaged; but those were disregarded by the imprudent leadership. Hence the separatist movements raised by the political parties of the provinces mushroomed. As Asaf Hussain analyses that when the British colonials left the land it became prey to ethnic hostilities, and
271 Ibid. 923 125 no uniting factors were considered, and dominion by one ethnic group over others additionally estranged “ethno-national identities”, which was contained by the involvement of the armed forces of Pakistan, which they thought would prevent the further split of the country.272
4.9 Punjabi Hegemony and Provinces in Dilemma
With strong patronization by the British the Punjabis felt themselves superior to other ethnicities, while the migrant Urdu-speaking elite believed in Muslim nationhood hence Punjabi-Muhajir nexus with emphasis upon Islam was a new phenomenon that occurred in newly-born country. Though Muhammad Ali Jinnah in his 11th August speech clearly articulated that the religion, or caste had nothing to do with the state, he could not sustain similar rule vis-à-vis the case of cultural identities. Resultantly applying the uniformity paradigm cost Pakistan its peace.
The strain and antagonism between the different cultural and political distinctiveness has only aggravated over the period because of trivializing the movements of the constituent units of Pakistan as a peril to grand identity and national unity. Pakistan, analytically, has been seized by one majority dominant group, in partnership with several interest groups.
“until the mid-seventies were relatively represented in the State structures, especially bureaucracy and military. The provinces that constituted Pakistan lost the sense of rootedness and commitment with the grand national identity. Dream to fuse Pakistan’s entire citizenry into one and united community is still unachievable, the patent example after Bengal’s liberation is the continuous resistance in Sindh and Balochistan.273
Alavi opines that the entire issue becomes more challenging and awkward where one ethnic group dominates the state apparatus, and tyrannizes masses through its lopsided “representation in the state bureaucracy and the military, as in Pakistan”. The state power
272 Ibid. 919 273 Hamza Alavi. “Nationhood and the Nationalities in Pakistan”, Economic and Political Weekly 24 no.27 (1989): 1527-1534. 126 seized by the “ruling military bureaucratic oligarchies” has developed a narrow outlook that serves interests of selective group/s. Hamza Alavi, quoting Anderson, states that Pakistan as a unified nation is equivalent to “official nationalism” of Pakistan, which is imposed by the state apparatus instead of publicly accepted.274 Hence creating sentimental attachment of the constituent units with the idea of oneness of the country could not take roots.
The Punjabis and the new migrants were employed on key places in bureaucracy and military, their dominant mindset controlled and designed the national policy that served their interests. According to Asaf Hussain:
In order “to legitimize their ideas, western ideologies of economic development and transfer of technology were effected through neo-colonial alliances, military and economic pacts. As a consequence, an influential policy advisory group, known as the Harvard Advisory Group, became entrenched in the Planning Commission from 1954- 1970 and exerted enormous indirect influence on the policy-making bureaucrats.275
The new migrants (Muhjirs) enjoyed leading jobs and access to resources jointly with Punjabis, who embodied almost 80 percent of the army.
New: “In 1951, while they represented 20 percent of the population on Sindh but 44 percent of that of Karachi, 40 percent of them were employed as clerical and sales workers. Even though they were in small minority, businessmen—mainly from Gujarat—were also influential and their quick recovery was resented by the “locals”. 276
Jeffrelot also points out towards the rise of Punjabi power during the Ayub Khan era (1958- 1969). General Ayub Khan (1958-1969) “consecrated” the increase of the Punjabis in the
274 Ibid 275 Asaf Hussain. “Ethnicity, National Identity and Praetorianism: The Case of Pakistan” 927 276 Feroze Ahmed. The Ethnicity and Politics in Pakistan. (Oxford University Press,1998). 127
State and the rise of Punjabi-Pakhtun alliance too place. Hence now “The Mohajirs were not any more in a position to exert as much influence as they did in 1947”277
However, Karachi was still on privilege. Even the complete drafts of the Five-Year Plans were written for the country. Resultantly maximum of the development schemes were introduced in the Punjab province and Karachi, the stronghold of the new migrants. Such ethnic stimuli on resource distributions reinforced the privilege for the Punjab and Karachi. Bhutto, astutely observing the strength of the Punjabis, said that the Punjab has emerged as "the bastions of power, the heart and mind, the sinews, muscles, and arms, the brains and brawn of Pakistan."278
Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi Struggle for Pakistan; Sharif ul Mujahid; Dr. Jaffar. Dr. Mehmood Hussain, Zakir Hussain k bhai; Muhammad Ali Siddiqui; Manzooruddin Ahmed; Aziz Ahmed…
Hence it was simply observed that the particular mode of maneuvering of resources and powers empowered the Military-Bureaucracy nexus watered by Punjabis and their close allies.
4.10 Sindhi Muslims Then
The establishment invoked official nationalism through appeals for loyalty for the Pakistani nation in the name of Muslim fraternity, but as viewed by Hamza Alavi, “the social roots of Muslim nationalism were quite shallow”.
In case of Sindh the urban Sindhi Muslims were almost, missing. Muslims in Sindh were landlords or farmworkers. Sindhi metropolitan society was overpoweringly Hindu, “except for a certain number of non- Sindhi Muslims who had migrated to cities of Sindh in the wake of colonial development”.
277 Christophe Jaffrelot & Rasul Bakhsh Rais. “Interpreting Ethnic Movements in Pakistan”, The Pakistan Development Review vol. 37 no. 4 (1999): p.157 278 Asaf Hussain. “Ethnicity, National Identity and Praetorianism: The Case of Pakistan” 927 128
It is recently that Sindhi speaking Muslims, who were mainly of countryside, have started moving to the towns and claiming positions in the urban society. Similar was the situation in the then North-West-Frontier Province and Balochistan who were overall backward with slight variations in the towns.
4.11 Sindhi Muhajir unity prospects?
The native Sindhis and Urdu speaking though were in antagonism had a common ground vis- à-vis Punjab’s hegemonic role. Unfortunately, due to the state-sponsored ethnic dilemmas such unified force between the Sindhis and their Muhajir brethren could not take a proper shape.
Interestingly, as the Judaism and Israel integrated multi-ethnic Jewish identities, Islam failed to do the same. Significance of the cultural identity superseded the same of religious. The reason may be that the colonials fearing Muslim revivalism encouraged growth of ethnic cleavages by depriving ethnicities of their due rights.279 As for them Muslim revivalism in the region would have cost them heavier; however, in Afghan Jihad they ostensibly triggered Isalmization sentiment, which, unfortunately, was the post-Cold War version of Islam. The Islamologists and researchers of political Islam hardly associated the new version of Islam to the real Islam
4.12 Religion to be central
On the one hand the 1956 Constitution, which renamed Pakistan as Islamic Republic, emphasized sovereignty of this part of world (Pakistan) belonging to God. This label was temporarily removed by the 1962 Constitution that was reinstated by 1973 Constitution. The non-Muslims and the cultural groups of the provinces were in double jeopardy after making of Pakistan. The constitution emphasized upon Islam and Muslim citizens only, hence the non-Muslim citizenry automatically felt thrown to the peripheries of alienation. On the other
279 Ibid. 922 129 hand, unlike Judaism, it long ago proved that Islam though possessed power of “integrative determinant” totally failed in Pakistan’s case.280
4.13 Movements suppressed
As a matter of fact, there has always been seen a particular mindset of the privileged nation/s that have residual bureaucratic and militaristic powers; such groups are intimidated by the ethnic and cultural movements of identity. By using their authorities bestowed to them by the higher ranks and positions they suppress such movements and mock the cultural specificities of the different identities. Although being in power can make them considerate to the other cultural and ethnic significance, which definitely would encompass diversity, and not necessarily challenge the powers of the dominant group. However, perhaps it may be natural when it comes to human nature that suppressing the cultural identities may suit them as more often competition is potential to lead to the conflict.
Maneuvering minds of the dominant ethnic groups use ploys against the nationalistic movements demanding provincial sovereignty, as we see happening in Balochistan and Sindh.
The ethnic groups gave it a double thought either to become first a Sindhi, Bengali, Pashtun, Baloch, and Punjabi or Pakistani that came conjoined with Islam? Those who at the onset keenly tended to be Pakistani, later on resorted to buttressing their provincial identities, rather creation of Bangladesh endorsed that religious identity was overwhelmed by the ethnic identity. 281 Asaf Hussain stating Karl Marx282 says that “the ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the ruling class”.
4.14 What contributed to Post Partition ethnic chaos.
280 Ibid.925 281 Ibid. 924-925 282 Karl Marx, "On Class," in C. S. Hell, ed., Structured Social Inequality (Lon- don: The Macmillan Co., 1969), 21- 23 130
The cultural and ethnic tumult in Pakistan may have historical roots; however, in the post- partition scenario those seem to be originating from a drive to uphold definite political and socio-economic interests. Apart from that, centralization of the state contributed to the ethnic pressures and caused strong sentiment of susceptibility among the cultural and ethnic groups.283 Here Gellner must be mentioned who defines the motive behind the rise of nationalistic sentiments, according to him:
"Men do not become nationalists from sentiment or sentimentality, atavistic or not, well-based or myth-founded: they become nationalists through genuine, objective, practical necessity, however obscurely recognized"284
4.15 Key solutions: Conditional to Respect Coexistence
The societies which are split by twofold distinctiveness, which could be cultural as well as national, often find it hard to function smoothly as in the duality of cultures the national and cultural ideas, language and other distinctiveness come into conflict particularly in the milieu of Pakistan where unity paradigm could have been introduced intelligently. In such societies, it is not hard for the ethnic identities to be assimilated into national identity when their cultural heritage is duly respected; without which it potentially ignites subjective chaos and political crises that ultimately challenges the political persistence of the state, which we observe in Pakistan’s case.
The key debate in Pakistan at this stage highlights the legitimate prospects for the “sub- national” identities within the grand national identity of Pakistan, for which Hamza Alavi views that “the worst of the contradictions of politics have been concentrated and taken violent forms in Sindh”.285 Hamza Alavi wrote this thirty years before, now forty years
283 Christophe Jaffrelot, & Rasul Bakhsh Rais. “Interpreting Ethnic Movements in Pakistan” 160. 284 Gellner, E. Thought and Change, (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1964) 285 Hamza Alavi. “Nationhood and the Nationalities in Pakistan”, 1527-1534. 131 additional passed to the date he wrote his views, and we observe the situation of Sindh has only worsened when it comes to the identity crises, migration and law and order situation.
Jinnah in his notable speech on August 11, 1947 addressed to the freshly born constituent assembly. In that momentous speech, he avowed to the notion of materialistic nationality in Pakistan. He declared:
“You may fit in to any religion or creed. That has nothing to do with the business of the state... We are starting with this fundamental principle, that we are all citizens of one state. I think we should keep that in front of us as our idea and you will find that in course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense because that is the personal faith of each individual but in the political sense, as citizens of the state”.
And, as should be clear, this is fundamentally a question about whether certain groups properly qualify as proper subjects of self-determination, and not a question about the universality of national self-determination
In Sindh, which has been historically a multi-ethnic province, the most violent forms of conflicts of ethnocentric politics can be seen. However, the multi-ethnic groups such as Baloch, Brahvi, and Siraiky would regard themselves as Sindhi despite having different mother tongues. Even some of the Balochi leaders have been leaders of nationalist political parties. As Alavi says:
“there are migrants from Cutch in India (business communities) who have lived in Sindh (mainly Karachi) for many generations and have played leadership roles in Sindhi politics. For example, Mahmood Haroon, who is from such a background, was among prominent delegates at a conference organized at Sann, the home of G M 132
Syed, when the Sindh National Alliance was founded in 1988. Feroz Ahmad, a militant Sindhi extremist, who is an Ismaili, also belongs to this category”.286
Sindhi identity carries a blend of various dissimilar components, which can be called as ‘a product of historical evolution’. However, the post-partition migrants are not classified as Sindhis which include, Muhajirs, Punjabis, and Pashtuns. In Punjab those refugees were set who were Punjabis in order to sustain Punjabi homogeneity. Sindh’s ethnic population was drastically changed.287 Prior to the partition Sindh's the major urban centre of Sindh, Karachi was mainly comprised of Hindus and Parsis, which were replaced by Urdu speakers. Sindhis realized domination of Punjabis and Muhajirs in Sindh.288
286 Hamza Alavi. “Nationhood and the Nationalities in Pakistan”, 1529. 287 Ibid. p.1529 288 Ibid. p.1530 133
Chapter 5
Class Perspectives on Nationalism
134
This chapter, in continuity of the above four chapters, develops concluding argument of the thesis in lens of class question. It explores specific theories of nationalism in history that address nationalism and class question in culturally-diversified societies. The purpose of this study is to enrich the narrative of nationalism in Pakistan in class perspective, which is a mosaic of diversified variables of ethno-linguistic and cultural identities. Considering the comprehensive nature of the study and peculiar cultural scenario of Sindh, this chapter specifically tries to respond to the question of Sindh’s nationalistic narrative in line with class perspective. Since it is a PhD thesis, the scope and purview of this study is limited to Sindh province of Pakistan, while the other provinces are not focused in this research, on account of the specified scope of the study.
This chapter is based on the argument of the socialist nationalist narrative of RB Palijo (a Marxist from Sindh, Pakistan) that he discusses in his book “the Dawn will rise”.289 In his book, Mr. Palijo presents a long-term solution to the problems of Sindh by restructuring the society anew through class struggle. The argument of Mr. Palijo is carefully applied in this thesis after identifying it with various nationalistic narratives in the world developed in class perspective in 19th and 20th centuries to-date.
This chapter methodically highlights both the difference between nationalism of the oppressed and the oppressor, as well as the difference between national-socialism and Fascism. It highlights difference between both the kinds, such as, how fascism or the nationalism of the oppressor uses emotionality as a tenet, and indulges into practice- without-theory instead of theory. In this way, the selling point of fascism is sentimentality that ultimately plunges the proponents and cliques of the ideology into violence.290 Hence violence is ultimately affixed in the nationalism of the oppressed.
289 Rasool Bakhsh Palijo, Subuh Thindo, (Sardar Printing Press 1978), 158. 290 Eugen Weber, “Nationalism, Socialism, and National-Socialism in France”, French Historical Studies, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Spring, 1962): 277. Published by: Duke University Press Stable. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/285883 Accessed: 16- 11-2016 04:57 UTC 135
The questions that this chapter tries to answer include: How Marxism and Socialism would resolve the question of nationalism in the societies like that of Pakistan? Can there be a socialist nationalism, or nationalist socialism, if so, what would be its essential components within the context of Sindh? How in Sindh nationalism may successfully deal with the class question in its culturally-diversified territory. How would it politically appear if in Pakistan where people who associate with each other through ethnic, religious, and sectarian variables, start recognizing each other through class affiliation by putting the other variables of identities as secondary? It finally answers the key question, that what happens when a national struggle does not encompass class question, or does not value class struggle, as has happened in Sindh’s case?
5.1 What Marxism and Marxists thinks about Theory Nationalism
Why Socialism being a proletarian-friendly ideology, which symbolically means to be sympathetic to the all and sundry categorized as oppressed groups or nations, could not encompass question of nationalism of the oppressed nations?
The conventional Marxists castoff the idea of nationalism considering their concept of internationalism. It is important to have a glance at the deficit of the universalistic aspect of Marxism or Socialism that how their anti-national prejudice discards the nationalistic sentiment even of the oppressed nations. Marxism has been severely censured as a class theory that without incorporating reality of nationalism, it becomes an inadequate internationalist theory that fails to understand significance of the movements and nationalism of the oppressed nations. Hence to improve their internationalist perspective, the Marxists must accept the severe shortfall in it, and enrich Marxism theoretically by signifying nationalism of the oppressed nations.
It is viewed in this way that the universalism of socialism was not prepared to handle the global political situation emerging in the 19th and 20th centuries. As Avineri views that in the political phenomena of 19th and 20th centuries, both Marxism and classical liberalism share 136 deficiency of having problem in accepting ‘historical entities’ which misfit within their ‘purely universal criteria’.291
Also, the Marxists, by virtue of their doctrine, sack ‘non-class affiliations such as of religion and nationality’, which in their view cause strong divisions and contradictions in society. Consequently, Marxists often underrated the standing that these allegiances contribute to the fights for freedom and the development of ‘oppressed peoples’. The support of nationalism would be justified if the belligerent nationalism is disregarded, which potentially is subservient to the so called elitist class of the society. Such nationalism disregards significance of national identities of the oppressed classes in the autocratic regimes. The Marxists’ outright ignorance towards the problems of racial and ethnic dilemma is a serious problem that requires to be fixed. According to Richard Levins the discrimination that travelled from the history would go on as a ‘social and economic reality’ that offers the day- to-day ‘experience that reinforces racist beliefs and practices’. This is the malicious sphere, without coming out of which racial solidarity cannot be bridged among the entire human kind.292
5.2 Lenin on self-determination hen Lenin saw the multi-ethnic sections within the tsarist Empire, the idea of the right of self-determination and secession occurred into his strategy and thought. However, the idea of ‘what a nation’ was not assumed at that stage, especially when it lacked foundations in Marxist thought. 293
Lenin portrays his views on the Marxian perspective of nationalism in his theory of imperialism. He claims that nationalism emerges with the rise of capitalism, and strengthens during imperialist growth. In that scenario, he saw nationalism and national movements to
291 Shlomo Avineri, “Marxism and Nationalism”, Journal of Contemporary History 26 no. ¾ (1991): 645 292 Richard Levins, “Continuing Sources of Marxism Looking for the Movement”, An Independent Socialist Magazine (2011), 39 293 Avineri, “Marxism and Nationalism”, 642 137 become a might against capitalism and its European power structures. However, meanwhile it was also seen how “chauvinism” emerged in the robe of nationalism to counter the real movements. Considering it as essential to classify the types of political and national movements and their legitimacy as Lenin saw African and Asian nationalism as justified in comparison to European Nationalism.294
What Lenin contributed to nationalism was adding a good deal input to the Marxist theory of nationality. First, he magnificently unified Marxist theory with ‘principle of self- determination’ despite having similar reservations that Marx and Engels had. Besides that, he also proved how in the current phase of ‘capitalist development, both nationalism and war flowed ineluctably from the current trends’. In that circumstance where national question emerged among the oppressed nations the proposal of internationalist perspective sounded anomaly. Like liberal-democratic thinkers he supported self-determination by breaking with ‘the Marxist revisionists and centrists’.295
According to Liberal Nationalism, as viewed by Jesus Huerta, that the national can flourish in a milieu of liberty, autonomy, -where they would do away with the policies and tactics that are detrimental to them and their coexisting diversity. He believes that liberal nationalism establishes the equity-based, conciliatory and productive collaboration among all kind of socio-cultural and ideological groups296.
Marx also stressed on the character of the bourgeoisie in forming the national state, however, simultaneously he also emphasized that in order to create a global market it was necessary to transcend the national boundaries. Davis writes that Lenin straightaway said and repeated a number of times that it was incumbent upon the social democrats of larger
294 Ibid, 644 295 Horace B. Davis. “Lenin and Nationalism: The Redirection of the Marxist Theory of Nationalism 1903-1917, Science & Society, Vol. 31, No. 2(1967): 164-165 296 Jesús Huerta de Soto, “A theory of Liberal Nationalism” Il Politico , Vol. 60, No. 4 (175) (Ottobre-Dicembre 1995): 583-598. 138 countries to counter every kind of national oppression and support the nationalities for their right to self-determination.297 Davis further writes:
Marx and Engels had not gone this far. This insistence was not necessarily inconsistent with Lenin's emphasis on the desirability of large national units. As explained in a pamphlet printed during the war: "To defend this right [viz. self-determination] does not mean to encourage in any way the formation of small states; on the contrary, it leads to a freer, more fearless and therefore wider and more universal formation of larger governments and unions of government.”298
Lenin strongly supposed that only socialism can bring forth internationalism in true sense. Meanwhile he backed ‘the right of separation also in advance of the socialist revolution’.299 He wrote: "Even for those colonial countries where there are no workers, where there are only slave-owners and slaves, etc., it is not only not absurd but obligatory for every Marxist to advance the slogan of 'self-determination'."300
5.3 Communist Manifesto/Pre-Modern paradigm of Marxism- Technical
Besides Lenin’s take on national question, if we gather dispersed positions on Marxism on the subject, those direct to 'the pre-modern paradigm' of Marxist notions on nationalism. We see one of those paradigms emerging before 1848, and another, 'the bourgeois paradigm' emerging in post-1848 scenario. The Communist Manifesto has a frequently- quoted passage that supports ‘pre-modern paradigm’ indicating to the power of capitalist market that universalizes. It, in view of Marx, rejects the perspective, which may be local, or national that turns the production and consumption so cosmopolitan that it loses its complete link and memory from the particular. The consumerist society where universalized
297 Davis, “Lenin and Nationalism”, 173-74 298 Zinoviev and Lenin, Socialism and War, 235, quoted in Horace B. Davis, “Lenin and Nationalism: The Redirection of the Marxist Theory of Nationalism 1903-1917, Science & Society, Vol. 31, No. 2(1967): 177 299 Davis, “Lenin and Nationalism”, 177 300 Lenin, "A Caricature of Marxism and 'Imperialist Economism'," 1916; in Collected Works, Vol. XIX, p. 251. 139 commodities lose value, intellectual or material production becomes immediately universalized301.302
Subsequent to that, this theoretical framework could be used in support of the particular national identity, which is looked away in the interest of universal identity. Besides that, the Marxist view on the “cosmopolitan and internationalist heritage of socialist movement” can be understood through the practice of “the revolutions of 1848/9”, through which nationalism emerged as the key power at the widespread level for the very first time. It was a much sounded, much needed component than the class interests, especially in the states where nationalist movements appeared, such as in Germany, Italy, Poland, Bohemia, Hungary and Croatia. Noticeably, such an influential might manifestly altered and redrew map of the Europe by rearranging the borders and the edifices of states of Europe. Hence it could no longer be considered as the ‘pre-modern’ architype about to be thrown into the litterbin of antiquity ‘by the universalizing forces of market capitalism’303. (Marx and Engels 1959 cited in Shlomo, 1991. Pg. 640)
5.4 Stalin’s Definition of Nationalism
Even though there have been outmoded definitions of nationalism, the subject of nationalism has not been alien to Socialist paradigm. For example, Stalin’s definition of a nation is quite inflexible. His four attributes of a nation include sharing of four components (territory, language, economy, culture) to become a nation, which in his view emerges only when there is rise of capitalism. The inflexibility of Stalin was that a nation must consist of all the components, or one ceases to be a nation. J. M. Blaut mentions that Stalin undoubtedly figured out that his description of being a nation cannot be generalized and is suitable ‘to one part of the world and to the pre-war era’, but at quite later stage. For
301 Avineri, “Marxism and Nationalism”, 642 302 Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy, ed. Lewis S. Feuer, quoted in Avineri, “Marxism and Nationalism”, 638 303 Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy, ed. Lewis S. Feuer, quoted in Avineri, “Marxism and Nationalism”, 640 140 example, he denoted to polyglot states such as ‘Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia’ as "national states."304
5.5 Communistic Idealism
As a matter of fact, the communistic idealization does really make sense in that particular sense, that with the complete establishment of Communism class discrepancies would be annihilated. According to Petrus, there is a communistic idealism, that the day Communism will completely launch itself, it will eliminate every kind of “national and class distinctions”. According to him, a society that is cosmopolitan with universal principles will be free from the disunions and battles amongst humans such as classes, nations, cultural identities or nationalities, unique social systems, and states’. He identifies them as the lesser approaches toward civil society triggered by ‘alienation, division of labor, and private property’305.
Citing Marx and Engels Petrus states that the national differences and contradictions are annihilated in ‘the Industrial Revolution’, which creates innumerable avenues for the condition in which uniformity prevails, nurtures and nationality ceases to exist. According to him there is a kind of uniformity of conditions, in which "nationality is already dead306.
5.6 Cosmopolitan Commodity Crosses Cultural Identity Limitations
Joseph A Petrus refers to Karl Marx and Fredric Engels who wrote in their German Ideology that as soon as the capital is globalized and turns into a global money, meanwhile the owner of the commodity becomes a cosmopolitan being. They viewed cosmopolitan affinity as a relation created by commodity among the commodity owners and one sees how a
304 J. M. Blaut, “Nationalism as an Autonomous Force”, Science & Society, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Spring, 1982): 9 305 Joseph A. Petrus,” Marx and Engels on the National Question”, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Aug. 1971), P. 800 306 K. Marx and F. Engels, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, trans. by T. B. Bottomore, quoted in Joseph A. Petrus, “Marx and Engels on the National Question”, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Aug. 1971), P. 800 141 commodity crosses the limitation of religiosity, culture, language and the other identities like political ideology307.
Marxists see class struggle as connected with entire cultural diversity. According to them in class, as well as in classless tribal societies (which are influenced by class struggle) the major source of conflict is coercive domination. There the struggle is between ruling classes versus oppressed sections; the entire phenomenon of resistance is for retaining power or seizing political power308. Hence the Marxists believe in addressing the issue of the all oppressed nations, groups or identities in the long process of struggle that is directed towards communist idealism.
5.7 How nationalism Entered Marxism- Philosophical Argument
As a matter of fact, the Communist Manifesto carries seeds of Marxist perspectives on nationalism, in which an emerging class must take hold of ‘a state in its struggle for power’, which is not fragmented ‘by internal cultural and political’ limitations; this kind of state can be a base for both the rise of capitalism, and the concurrent growth of the class resistance of the proletariat. In this stance, we see how Marx and Engels drew closer to the theory of nationhood. Their position on the case of Ireland was even clearer that Ireland as a nation ‘was considered as viable’ and exceptionally big; while the states, such as ‘Austria-Hungary and Turkey’, were understood as ‘non-viable’, as possible to crumble309.
5.8 Austro-Marxists
The change in Marxism took place when a range of Marxists began accepting that lacking theory of nationalism and having insufficient material on the subject is a big shortfall in Marxism. The philosophy of nationalism as an independent power came in Marxism at the commencement of the twentieth century when we see how Austrian Social Democrats Otto
307 K. Marx and F. Engels, The German Ideology (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1964), 32, quoted in Joseph A. Petrus, “Marx and Engels on the National Question”, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Aug. 1971), P. 800 308 J. M. Blaut, “Nationalism as an Autonomous Force”, 2
142
Bauer and Karl Renner, propose very logical opinions defending Austrian Social Democratic party's standing ‘on the national question in the Austro-Hungarian empire’. This standing, though banned right of secession or self-determination, defended the proclaim of the ‘national groups’ for cultural equality, civil liberties and cultural autonomies.310
In the end of the 20th century it was observed how Marxists took real efforts to restructure the ‘Marxist-Leninist theory of nationalism’ and did away with the dogmatic way of looking at the theoretical structures of Marxism. Hence the gaps of the Marxian model on nationalism were meticulously and candidly reviewed, to pave the new culture within the socialist theory and praxis.311
The Austro-Marxists, on the one hand, see Karl Marx holding the proletariat as the central reason and objective to Marxism due to its being a ‘universal’ class, and on the other hand, he sees how liberalism holds market as one of the “universal modes of human conduct”. Based on that what the Austro-Marxists propose is to weave the particularity of nationalism into the universal realms of both ideological paradigms of liberalism and Marxism.312
As in the first chapter of this thesis “Philosophy of nationalism: Exploring History” we read Fichte’s and Herder’s notion that principally culture and language define nationalism, as in case of German nationalism, it became the ideological base.313 Similarly, Austro Hungarian Marxists’ Neo-Kantian as well as ‘Hegelian argument is that the nations, in essence, are ideas’, which ‘form consciousness’ and are basic components of a class society at the evolutionary stage. In this context, it is deduced that national struggles aim at safeguarding individual liberties, civil rights, which include linguistic or cultural rights. Hence in social democratic sphere the objective does not support national independence, but upholds the rights.314
310 J. M. Blaut, “Nationalism as an Autonomous Force”, 6 311 Avineri, “Marxism and Nationalism”, 645 312 Ibid, 649 313 J. M. Blaut, “Nationalism as an Autonomous Force”, 3-4 314 Stalin, Marxism and the National-Colonial Question, (University Press of the Pacific, May 2003), quoted in J. M. Blaut, “Nationalism as an Autonomous Force, 9 143
5.9 Nationalist struggle: Case Studies
National struggle can be termed as very typical kind of class struggle, which Blaut calls as "external class struggle." It happens once the shared relations of production outspread across a spatial limit. The ruling classes manipulate both "internal" producing class and an "external" one also. 315
The case studies of similar problems would highlight on the subject more. The case studies of nationalism of Belarusian and Japanese nation-building would present example of national struggles in two different regions.
5.10 Belarusian nation-building
The late Nineteenth and early Twentieth century’s Belarusian national resistance was nearly a model of the nationalism of small nations in the Socialist system during Bolshevik rule. At the time of Belarusian movement, the Belarusian were known ‘as an ethnic group’ which inhabited a land but did not have ‘political independence’ and no constant ‘literary tradition’, which left them at the mercy of dominant ruling class of ‘Russian or Polish origin’. At the first stage as viewed by Hroch of nationalism the Belarusian literati began spreading ‘an awareness of the linguistic, cultural, and social ideas of Belarusians as a distinctive ethnic group’. For example, the first writer in Belarusian language was the Playwright Vincent Dunin-Martinkevich, who made his career in the literature of Belarusian language, and his content manifested ‘Belarusian national idea’. He in a way launched revival of Belarusian identity through his writings that inspired younger generation of the time, which created agitation. He believed that without invoking national consciousness no cultural, political or economic uplift was possible316.
315 J. M. Blaut, “Nationalism as an Autonomous Force”, 22 316 Nelly Bekus, “Nationalism and socialism: “Phase D” in the Belarusian nation-building”, Nationalities Papers, Vol. 38, No. 6 (2010): 829 144
There are three distinctive traits of any national movement as viewed by Hroch in his “From National Movement to the Fully Formed Nation”; 1) first, a national culture should be based on language linked with the group in which their education and socio-political life runs. Second, the group should have their socio-cultural and political rights to the extent of self- determination that can be initiated with autonomy in the beginning. Third, there should be a complete socio-cultural structure comprised of literati, ‘educated and sophisticated elites, bureaucracy, business class, and where essential– free farmers and organized labors’.317
5.11 Case Study 2 Japan: The previous views on the concept of nationalism:
Another case study is of a revolutionary group in Japan, named, the Japan Revolutionary Chrysanthemum Flag Association—Nihon Kakumei Kikuhata Doshikaim, which believes in unity in socialism and nationalism. It is one of the old-style hubs of obvious and loud patriotism and nationalism that prefers Socialism to Communism. Their belief is that it is not bourgeois society that will ultimately lead to human emancipation, it is rather a noble society, which would end class rule by bringing the political parties and class both under the supremacy of nation.
The Kikuhata-ism in Japan is a self-ruled doctrine that emphasizes on the liberation of people by providing them every opportunity of economic benefits and basic means of happiness and pleasure. They see democracy advancing towards socialism, however, that socialism must be founded on nationalism. This unity in socialism and nationalism ‘will be "noble" socialism viewed from the stand point of political theory, and "national socialism" considered from the point of view of politics’. In the nutshell, it may be a synchronization between the capitalists and the proletariat by settling the matters of equality in power318.
317 Miroslav Hroch, “From National Movement to the Fully Formed Nation” 62, quoted in Nelly Bekus, “Nationalism and socialism: “Phase D” in the Belarusian nation-building”, Nationalities Papers, Vol. 38, No. 6 (2010): 832 318 Nobutaka Ike, “National Socialism" in Japan, Pacific Affairs, Vol. 23, No. 3(1950): 311-314 145
Several such examples as well as the leftist nationalism of Bauer, in particular, are an answer to the societies like that of Pakistan, where conflict has destabilized the socio-political and economic conditions. Bauer believes that the proponents of ‘international capital’ yield a nationwide conservative and illiberal arrogance at both ‘macro and micro levels. This splits the proletariat into racial and cultural groupings that turn out to be highly unbending and hostile. He offers solution of a kind of nationalism that will overarch sectarianism and unite the workers around a common set of symbols and institutions. There would, therefore, ideally exist a federation of constitutionally equal national communities that would together pledge allegiance to a supra-national state’. Bauer emphasizes profoundly on the part of ‘trade unions’ in promoting narrative on equality ‘mutual respect’319.
This concept is more relevant to multi-cultural societies and gives an idea of a robust social- democratic state, which is substitute to globalization. Present-day rational ‘on state power’ makes Bauer's ideas more relevant. Similarly, as Deleuze (1999: 24) quotes Foucauldian academicians who strongly believe that in a nation-state, ‘power is exercised rather than possessed by a dominant class’; in that situation nationalism potentially becomes a means of creating innovative unities along with the previous generations'.320
There are several examples that endorse that despite a number of incongruities between the ideologies of nationalism and Communism, Marxism has not rejected nationalism321 According to Kasprzak:
Marx and Engels’ conceptualization of nationalism (as a political phenomenon) was based on five fundamental criteria: liberation or emancipation from all forms of oppression; emphasis on the revolutionary road to socialism; the role of the state; the internationalism of workers’ solidarity; and the model of inevitable historical progression. In addition, as the first part also reveals, Marx and Engels’ theoretical dogmatism was tainted by a desire for activism. After all, they were hoping for a global upheaval to unravel capitalism. Hence, their work as revolutionaries required a degree of strategic flexibility, especially in response to the realities of the 19th
319 Barry Ryan & Oven Worth, “On the contemporary left nationalism”, Capital and Class, Vol. 34, No. 1 (2010): 57 320 Ibid, 57-58 321 Michal Kasprzak, “Nationalism and Internationalism: Theory and Practice of Marxist Nationality Policy from Marx and Engels to Lenin and the Communist Workers’ Party of Poland”, (PhD. Diss. University of Toronto, 2012) 146
century, of which nationalism was a product. Nationalism was dangerous, destructive and exclusive, but perhaps it could be exploited to advance the socialist cause.322
According to Marxist exegesis, there are three stages, which can tell about the position of Marx and Engels on the position of nation or nationality. It can be observed from the Marx’s response to ‘Romantic nationalism, liberalism, industrialization, and the advent of the modern state’ before 1948. However, they rightly saw that it was potential that the nation- state became too private and coercive in reply to ‘free trade capitalism’, that it perhaps could never guarantee freedom given by the class connection. In that case, ‘class would substitute the nation as a universal agent of history’.
But when Marx and Engels witnessed the 1848 revolutions and mushrooming of nations, their outlook vis-à-vis the question of nationality changed. What made Engels differentiate between the kinds of nation was after they viewed Nationalism as an innovative wonder for instituting an element of a policy pragmatism. He saw there were ‘historical and non- historical nations’, in that scenario there was a potential to support the nationalist struggles as a source to address class issues simultaneously. With these examples, the approach towards kinds of nationalisms matured. Ultimately in 1850s and beyond, Marx and Engels saw that the question of Irish and the Pole identity was so dominant that it compelled to reassess the interaction of the issues related to nationalities and overall collective society. In such scenario, the potential was there that the national particularities could crop diverse situations for the development of class movements.323
Therefore, we see that the discourse on Marxism and Nationalism in the 19th century is no more clashing at all as it was presumed previously. The logic that Kasprzak uses is that since ‘socialism and nationalism’ had a lot more mutual that both fervently rejected each other.324 Viewing the commonalities between socialism and nationalism Kasprzak quotes Stefen Berger and Angel Smith that this is fact that socialism and nationalism are professed as poles
322 Ibid, 17 323 Ibid, 17-18 324 Ibid, 21 147 apart ‘ideological spectrum’, however there are commonalities between ‘socialist thinking’ and ‘liberal nationalism’. For example, he further elaborates:
Both were rooted in the post-Enlightenment discourse of “progress”; both were responding to the social transformations of the 19th century, giving displaced people a sense of identity and continuity; both shared a sense of essentialism (albeit with different emphasis: nationalist spiritual versus economic); both utilized the universalist rhetoric of freedom, emancipation and political rights (including political participation); and both appealed to the marginalized and overeducated intellectual men.325
Initially Marx and Engels enthusiastically reinforced Poland’s movement for liberation in the 1840s. The ancient heritage, radical character, and ‘anti-Russian’ outlook made the Polish nation. Nonetheless in the early 1850s, Engels rejected the idea of Polish liberation as he viewed them as miserably idealistic that they would find it hard for them to assimilate their neighbors. Besides them he also saw them to be gulped ‘by Russia and Germany’. There was again a third shift in both Marx and Engels in the 1860s, that they again supported Polish liberation. These fluctuations on the positioning of Marxism on nationalism witness to the budding stage of Marxist perspectives on the idea of nationalism.326
The other important question regarding some of the socialist predecessors being chauvinistic nationalists, were behind the socialist cover. Liah Greenfeld, an expert on the field accepts this understanding. She believed they failed in disconnecting themselves from their own national foundations as they were creation of the era of Romanticism. They continuously owned and cherished their foundational values in beyond apparent; in the apparent there was socialist outfit Wolfe claims that “neither in 1848, nor in 1870, nor at any time in their lives, were Marx and Engels antinationalist or ‘defeatist’ for their native land.”327 Additionally, their fascination for radical war, ‘wars of unification, wars in the name of
325 Ibid, 21 326 Ibid, 23 327 Beltrum D. Wolfe, Marxism One Hundred Years in the Life of a Doctrine, (Dial Press, 1965), 24 148 civilization, wars against backwardness and reaction’, exemplifies their inclination towards ‘revolutionary’ nationalism. For example, Kasprzak views:
After all, for instance, neither ever recanted the notion that Slavs of the Habsburg Empire should be assimilated; both promoted cruel methods if they assisted progress; and both revered German spiritual or philosophical superiority. Although these views are not signs of overt German nationalism, they did reveal the degree to which Marx and Engels were a product of their time.328
Since the conditions for nationalism were not ripe hence both Marx and Engels did not have enough examples to evidently propose approaches and objectives for nationalist or class struggles of the times to come. They were revolutionary figures who not only would have had strong point of view on such matters, but had actively joined the struggle to set the standards for history. This entails that the nationalism could be reinforced in definite conditions as a part of the ‘revolutionary strategy’. Such ideological suppleness often buttresses on considering strategic alterations if needed in the circumstances when unforeseen situations take place. This can be the example of as ‘Marx and Engels’ support of trans-class alliances or coalitions within nations (or more broadly speaking, the link between nation and class)’.329
On the path of class awareness and the attaining power on the state apparatuses and establishments, the working class must distinguish its between its own benefits and those of the other classes, that are undergoing varies struggles, resistance and movements.330 From this standpoint, national philosophy presumed the role of a ideological field for political control. It was preconditional for the proletariat to triumph over the national class movement to become part of a broader transnational movement. By analyzing the nationalist struggles and theories politically and strategically both Marx and Engels pursued
328 Kasprzak, “Nationalism and Internationalism: Theory and Practice of Marxist Nationality Policy from Marx and Engels to Lenin and the Communist Workers’ Party of Poland”, 24 329 Ibid, 41
149 to present ‘action-guiding maps’ that would guide the egalitarians and ‘revolutionaries’ to choose the right times to reinforce or reject specific national struggles. Hence, the movements of national fusion could contribute to ‘class-related ends’. Their practical worth within revolutionary zeal would overshadow theoretical incongruities if there are any. 331
Marx and Engels witnessed how British colonization wrecked the native manufacturing of Ireland, opposite to his former view that it supported Ireland during its industrial progress; this was the time when industrialization created financial uncertainty that inspired antipathies and contradictions within proletarian class. Remarkably, they viewed these cases political point of view, instead of the same of economic. Internationalism, which was either in the form of expansionism, colonialism or agreements, could be used to validate domination ‘of one state over another’, during that we see national autonomy also starts gaining some legitimacy. Also, where nations become active tool in firming up class struggle, there nationalism may serve to the ‘socialist cause’. Similarly, national circumstances in the historical course, formed multifaceted powers that involuntarily designed socialism’s development.332
This particularly happened when Marx and Engels clearly differentiating between the ‘oppressed and oppressor nations’. This novel contradiction was tangled with their former classification of ‘historical/progressive/revolutionary and non-historical/anti- progressive/anti-revolutionary typologies’. Kasprzak writes:
They also abandoned the notion that “movements for national independence must work strictly within the bounds of a wider internationalist programme” or that they must adhere to specific social goals. Neither the state nor national interests were willing to wither away. All these conclusions were not only a product of critical observation or of the changing international situation, but also of polemics with other socialist thinkers of the First
331 Ibid. 41 332 Ibid, 43 150
International, including Mikhail Alexandrovitch Bakunin, Ferdinand Lassalle and Pierre Joseph Proudhon.333
Marx emphasized with regards to Paris Commune that it must lead to the solidarity of the nation. according to him, the harmony of the nation was to be prepared ‘by the Communal Constitution’, and destroy the ‘the state power’ which demanded to be the symbol of that harmony by ignoring the nation itself, on which it was dependent.”334
When devolution continued during the 1870s, and the socialist center moved ‘from France to Germany, Marx still reinforced these national forces’. (Zwick, 1976, 134).335 One way or another, nationalism was justified when contributed to socialist objectives.
“But he was not blind to the growing strength of national interests within national socialist parties. His criticism of the Gotha Programme reflected (and foreshadowed) all the uncertainties of the changing nature of the socialist movement in the last quarter of the 19th century.336
Marxism appeared in 19th century as a significant ideology that supported a progressive, impartial and ‘scientific examination of capitalism’ and sketching a trail to socialism. Up till now, Marxists discoursed workers’ unity and related to radical capture of power, with the ultimate annihilation of ‘state capitalism, and with the development of a new proletarian state’, who is a Marxist was a disputed subject, which deepened as the 20th century approached. As viewed by Kasprzak:
Throughout his life, Marx tried to dismiss nationalism and highlight social issues. But brushing aside the nationality question produced a confusing legacy, which only fueled
333 Ibid, 44 334 Karl Marx, The Civil War in France, quoted in Michal, “Nationalism and Internationalism: Theory and Practice of Marxist Nationality Policy from Marx and Engels to Lenin and the Communist Workers’ Party of Poland”, 49 335 Zwick, “The Marxist Roots of National Communism,”. Canadeia Review of Studies in Nationalism, vol.3 No. 2, (1976): 134 336 Karl Marx, “Critique of the Gotha Programme,” (New York: International Publishers, 1975), 75-100, quoted in Kasprzak , “Nationalism and Internationalism: Theory and Practice of Marxist Nationality Policy from Marx and Engels to Lenin and the Communist Workers’ Party of Poland”, 49 151 debates amongst Marxists. Whether intentionally or not, Marx failed to produce a decisive body of scholarship on the nationality question, thus leaving his disciples with many misgivings and questions about the diverging interpretations of the master’s thoughts on the subject.337
Internationalism was undeniably the fortification of Marxism—proletariat of all regions were to bond in a joint struggle counter to capitalist manipulation. If worldwide freedom was going to guarantee the freedom from every kind of manipulation, then there was no need to count in only one kind of repression, and ignore others? As they saw no difference between Commune’s internationalism and its national government, as in the prime days the line of demarcation between the international and national distorted, so felt both Marx and Engels. In particular circumstances, they started seeing national bonding as a possible prerequisite for internationalism. Having experience of repressing of subgroups in in Germany, Marx proclaimed the liberation or self-determination of the other nations to be the necessary condition for independence within one’s own. The subsequent classification of the ‘historical and non-historical, of the oppressive and oppressed, of the revolutionary and non-revolutionary, did not amass to constitute a definitive answer’.
Upon the rise and expansion of Social Democracy, which emerged during the 70s and 80s of the 19th century, Marxists strongly felt necessity of offering an optimistic reply to the national question.338
Engels’s roots strongly imbedded in the 19th century England; he was more pragmatic man. This specific characteristic of Engels turned him out to be made him a real guide to his followers, and it echoed ‘in a literary style’ that stretched to the masses who found his writings easier than Marx’s complicated text.339
337 Kasprzak, “Nationalism and Internationalism: Theory and Practice of Marxist Nationality Policy from Marx and Engels to Lenin and the Communist Workers’ Party of Poland”, 50 338 Eley Geoff, Forging Democracy: The History of the Left in Europe, 1850-2000 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 339 Joshua Muravchik, Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2002), 89. 152
Engels was the one who took certain measures that detached Marxism from its only identity as a system that appeared in the Soviet exegesis.340 His works reflect dilemma of the intensifying disagreements between notional and convention Marxism and applied activism.
Engels not only had a reasonable understanding of the national question. He recognized both pros and cons of nationalism. Though he did not accept to establish rules defined around cultural identities such as race, ethnicity, language or religion; instead he favored such egalitarian and independent states where the proletariat easily follow their class struggles and international movements341 Engels “presumed that it was unlikely for a nation to deliberate upon its core difficulties unless it has political freedom, and the international working class struggle was grounded on the presence of the autonomous nations.271 Engels ultimately claimed that should the socialist movements flourish, it was essential for the socialists to demonstrate support for the national independence. 342
For which he believes class struggle would be the sole solution, which ultimately, first time in history of Sindh would bring out the internal and external plundering of resources. His foremost argument is that freedom and development of masses mainly depends upon the following
5.12 R. B. Palijo’s Socialist Paradigm of Struggle
This research finally answers the main question of the thesis, that what happens when a national struggle does not encompass class question, or does not value class struggle? There happens the chaos that we see happening in Pakistan.
The thought analogous to the Marxist paradigm in Pakistan is of Mr. Rasool Bakhsh Palijo, pioneer of Awami Tahrik, who presents a socialist model for resolving Sindh’s political issues.
340 David McLellan, Marxism after Marx, (Palgrave MacMillan, 1979) 9-12 341 Michael Forman, “Engels’ Internationalism and the Theory of the Nation,” in Engels After Marx, (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, c 1999) 249. 342 Kasprzak, “Nationalism and Internationalism: Theory and Practice of Marxist Nationality Policy from Marx and Engels to Lenin and the Communist Workers’ Party of Poland”, 26 153
Primarily R. B. Palijo suggests stages of resolving political problems of Sindh. At the first stage, he emphasizes upon annihilation of feudalism from Sindh. He states that the majority part of the world did away with feudalism and rural fiefdoms, however, in certain parts of the world feudalism is still thriving such as in Sindh province of Pakistan. Palijo believes that without completely crushing feudalism from Sindh, the salvation of masses is an impossible dream. Feudalism is one of the great impediments in the way of urbanization and industrialization that takes place in Capitalist system. 343
Palijo defends his standpoint by this argument that in history there have been only two paths towards the development of any nation—one is Capitalism and another is Socialism. He believes that there is no third part. He emphasizes how Capitalism has been a progressive ideology that it transformed countries like England, France, Germany, Japan and America. However, since a social or political system is also a live and dynamic entity, therefore, it too comes into existence, ceases to exist and evolves like any living organism.
Similarly, Capitalism, if not reformed, becomes obsolete and dead; there are examples of the countries that are trapped into the shackles of Capitalism and ultimately becomes prey of imperialist powers, hence, according to Palijo following socialist paradigm is the only solution nations of the Third World can have.
According to Palijo’s short-term paradigm, establishing complete socialist model is directly proportional to annihilating feudalism first, which of course would happen in due course of the struggle. Therefore, at the first stage, the socialist struggle must be strategized, which would focus agrarian and democratic struggle. The foundational actors of this change would be the poor peasants and labors, termed as proletariat, who would pave the way for democratic rule, which would ultimately crush feudalism.344
However, prior to the agrarian-democratic revolution preliminary preparation is required, which according to Palijo would be formulating sketch of national-democratic struggle,
343 Palijo, R. B. (1974). Subuh Thindo. Sardar Printing Press, Hyderabad. 344 Ibid, 159-60 154 which would attract diversified masses of the province. This struggle would first set the province free from dominance of Punjab that has also been a great drawback in democratic development of Sindh. As it is thoroughly discussed in the chapter four of the dissertation that how Punjab has been monopolizing over the resources and state institutions.
Once the national-democratic struggle succeeds and it establishes national-democratic rule, it would be strong enough to crush feudalism from Sindh.
155
Conclusion
The concluding argument of the thesis is that the cosmopolitan nationalism could be the best solution to the problems of Sindh, which, if once established, is potential to set up the foundational structures of agrarian-democratic revolution leading to Socialism, as opined by Palijo in the above chapter. However, this requires at the first stage promotion of cosmopolitan nationalism is required that would create situation to unite the different groups that diverge based on a number of variable.
As we understand that varied harmonies and commonalities reinforce the unity, among the nationalities existing at the same geographical locations. The discussion on the positive and negative dimensions of cosmopolitan system has created various thoughts and understandings about the system. The provinces,345 which formed the federation of Pakistan, may demonstrate the best examples of cosmopolitan nationalism if the basic principles and legalities were similarly considered as done in the successful federations all over the world, such as Germany, Canada, and Switzerland etc.
In my view, the major issue of the country is issue of class issue. Nevertheless, why masses do not unite based on class and why ethnocentric sentiment is gaining strength is highly important question. It is often assumed that the class struggle and national question can never coexist, despite the fact that Pakistan is divided into two diverging groups, i.e. oppressing minority and oppressed majority. Since I support Cartesian method of solving the problem I would divide the problem into simple and complex and would address the simpler first and the complex afterwards. Therefore, the simpler problem here is to first end disharmony among the ethnic groups of the province before fighting with the feudal and elite powers.
345 The terminology for the constituent units globally has been used as provinces, states or cantons. 156
This is fact that in Pakistan the class problem could not gain vital importance, all through the commencement of the country to-date, as the nations joined the country, they have been hectic into struggling for their unique identities and rights. That is the reason the required coexistence has been a great challenge in Sindh.
We observe that a very minor number of diverse ethnic groups unites at socialist platform; while the majority of the people, especially from Sindhi and Urdu speaking groups, stay divided based on nationalist and ethnic outfits respectively to representing their particular identities. That is why the preparation of class struggle has always been hampered by the challenges of ethnic dilemma faced by the constituent units of the federation. Neither the state institutions allowed resolving such challenges.
There is need of a just and reasonable federation; the model of cosmopolitan nationalism will allow the constituent units and the federation divide the subjects, like education and culture for the nationalities and “the federal state would deal with social and economic issues as well as justice, defense and foreign policy”346
While the federating units would be rather more autonomous now than the Bauer and Renner model as the economic matters of the provinces in Pakistan are provincial subjects now after the 18th Constitutional Amendment.
The migrants from India in 1940s and 50s in Sindh’s larger cities, and migrants from Afghanistan and Khyber Pukhtunkhwa in 80s, 90s, and 2000s to Karachi and other major cities of Sindh. The migrant Muhajirs did not have common culture and common language, however, being an extreme minority, they adopted a common language, Urdu, which was given status of national and official language of Pakistan. In this way. they gave themselves a unique identity “Muhajir” (the migrant), and claimed exclusive geographical space within
346 Stargardt, Nicholas. Origin of the Constructivist Theory of the Nation. In S. Periwa (ed.). Notions of Nationalism, Budapest, (Central European University Press, 1995), 83-105 157 the territory among the natives and new-comers respectively. Therefore, the idea of shaping of a joint national culture failed even at the very beginning of the country; and harmonious coexistence of diversified cultures succumbed to cultural and ethnic antagonism among the natives and the migrants.
In Bauer’s views that diversity of classes jointly shapes the national culture; he firmly believes that in a socialist system the antagonism among nationalities ceases to exist, as he saw the base of the main conflict was class contradiction. In the absence of class division, the national identities would automatically give rise to cooperation and coexistence. However, in my strong opinion, the antagonism among nations in Sindh may only cease to exist when the nations are not deprived of their cultural, economic and political rights. In Pakistan’s case rise of class question and a grand alliance among the diverse nations and groups is directly proportional to first resolving the cultural, economic and political rights of the provinces. Only then other political paradigms such as cosmopolitan nationalism and agrarian- democratic rise may take place step wise.
This alliance can be formed through cosmopolitanism, a modern political phenomenon that cannot only unite diversity on reasonable grounds, but it also will address the questions of rights of citizens. Only then the way for socialism be paved, which too requires corrections. If one or few essential and people-friendly components are missing from any popular theory, it must be fixed sooner than later.
Sindh’s ethnocentric dilemma can be easily resolved in a just and inclusive federation. The scenario would be different if the diverse cultural identities are united without coercion, and instead of connecting mechanically join the federation upon will. This strategy would change the fate of the country.
158
Bibliography
Ahmed. Feroze. The Ethnicity and Politics in Pakistan. Oxford University Press,1998.
Alavi, Hamza. “Nationhood and the Nationalities in Pakistan”, Economic and Political Weekly 24 no.27 (1989): 1527-1534.
Anderson, Benedict Richard O'Gorman. Imagined Communities, Verso Books,1991.
Anderson, Benedict Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (Rev. edition). Courier Companies, Inc., 1936.
Appiah, Kwame Anthony. Cosmopolitan patriots, (1996). Quoted in Martha Nussbaum & J. Cohen Eds., For love of country: Debating the limits of patriotism, Boston: Beacon Press, 21- 29.
Asaf Hussain. “Ethnicity, National Identity and Praetorians: The Case of Pakistan”, Asian Survey 16 no. 10 (1976): 918-930
Avineri, Shlomo. “Marxism and Nationalism”, Journal of Contemporary History 26 no. ¾ (1991): 637-57. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/260664 Accessed on: 16-11-2016 06:18 UT
Ayres, Alyssa. “Language, the Nation, and Symbolic Capital: The Case of Punjab”, The Journal of Asian Studies 67 no. 3(2008): 917-946.
Ayres, Alyssa. “Speaking Like a State: Nationalism, Language, and the Case of Pakistan”, (PhD diss.), University of Chicago, 2004
Ayres, Alyssa. "The Two Punjabs: A Cultural Path to Peace in South Asia?" World Policy Journal 22 no. 4 (2005): 63-68.
Barry, Brian. “Statism and Nationalism: A Cosmopolitan Critique”, quoted in I. Shapiro and L. 159
Bauer, Otto. ‘The Nation’, quoted in G. Balakrishnan (ed.), Mapping the Nation, London: Verso, 1996, 39-77.
Bekus, Nelly. “Nationalism and socialism: “Phase D” in the Belarusian nation-building”, Nationalities Papers 38, No. 6 (2010): 829
Benner, Erica. Really Existing Nationalism: A Post-Communist View from Marx and Engles, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
Bernard, F. M. “National Culture and Political Legitimacy: Herder and Roussea”, Journal of History of Ideas XLIV no. 2 (1983): 231-53.
Blaut, J. M. “Nationalism as an Autonomous Force”, Science & Society 46, No. 1 (Spring, 1982): 9
Breuilly, John. Nationalism and the State, Manchester University Press, 1993.
Calhoun, C. J. Nationalism, University of Minnesota Press, 1998.
Chandio, Jami. “Riyasat jo Buhran and QaumiSuwa”, Centre for Peace and Civil Society, 2006.
Chandio, Jami. Tabdeeli a Ja Muharik and Sindh jo Aindo. Central for Peace and Civil Society, 2007.
Chandio, Jami. Sindh Case, Centre for Peace and Civil Society, 2009.
Chaudhry, Zahid. Pakistan ki Siyasi Taareekh: Sindh- Masa’la e Khud-Mukhtari ka Aghaz, Idara e Mutalia e Tareekh, 1994.
Carr, Edward Hallett. Nationalism and After, London: Macmillan, 1945.
Cohen, Mitchell, Quoted in Nielsen, “Cosmopolitan Nationalism”. The Monist 82, no. 3 (1999): pp 458-459 160
Horace B. Davis. “Lenin and Nationalism: The Redirection of the Marxist Theory of Nationalism 1903-1917, Science & Society 31, No. 2(1967): 164-165
Eckersley, Robyn. “From Cosmopolitan Nationalism to Cosmopolitan Democracy”, Review of International Studies 33 No. 4 (2007): pp. 675-692 Retrieved from URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20097966 . Accessed on 22/09/2014 07:42
Forman, Michael. “Engels’ Internationalism and the Theory of the Nation,” in Engels After Marx, (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, c 1999) 249.
Forman, Michael. Nationalism and the International Labor Movement: The Idea of the Nation in Socialist and Anarchist Theory, University Park, Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998.
Gellner, Ernest. Culture, Identity, and Politics, Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Gellner, Ernest. Nationalism, New York University Press, 1998.
Gellner, Ernest. Nations and Nationalism. Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
Guibernau, Montserrat. Nations without States: Political Communities in Global Age. Polity Press, 1999.
Gutmann, Amy. Democratic Citizenship., quoted in J. Cohen (ed.), For Love of Country. Boston: Beacon Press, 1996, 66-71.
Hayes, Carlton Joseph Huntley. The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism, New York: Macmillan, 1931.
Heater, Derek. The Theory of Nationhood: A Platonic Symposium, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1998.
Himmelfarb, Gertude. “The illusion of cosmopolitanism”, (1996), quoted in Martha Nussbaum & Jacob Cohen (Eds.). For love of country, Boston: Beacon Press, 1996: 72-77 161
Hobsbawn, Eric. J. Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality, Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Hussain, Asaf. “Ethnicity, National Identity and Praetorianism: The Case of Pakistan”, Asian Survey 16 no. 10 (1976): 918-930.
Hussain, Asaf. “Pakistan Society: Islam, Ethnicity and Leadership in South Asia by Akbar S. Ahmed”, Third World Quarterly 11 no.2 (1989): 229-231.
Hutchinson, John & Smith, Anthony D. ed. Nationalism, Oxford University Press, 1995.
Hutchinson, John & Smith, Anthony D. ed. Ethnicity, Oxford University Press, 1996.
Ignatieff, Michael. Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism. Penguin Books, 1993
Ike, Nobutaka. “National Socialism" in Japan, Pacific Affairs 23, No. 3 (1950): 311-314
Jaffrelot, Christophe & Rais, Rasul Bakhsh. “Interpreting Ethnic Movements in Pakistan”, The Pakistan Development Review 37 no. 4 (1999): p.153-179.
Jalal, Ayesha. “Conjuring Pakistan: History as Official Imagining”. International Journal of Middle East Studies 27 no.1 (1995): 73–89.
Jalal, Ayesha. Self and Sovereignty: Individual and Community in South Asian Islam since 1850. New York: Routledge, 2000.
Jatoi, Haider Baksh. Statement of the accused, Sindhica Academy, 1980.
Joyo, Muhammad Ibrahim. Sindh: Betrayed, Roshni Publications, 1980 a.
Joyo, Muhammad Ibrahim. Sindh Muhinnjay Khuwabanji, Roshni Publications, 1980 b
Joyo, Muhammad Ibrahim. Save Sindh Save the Continent, Roshni Publications, 1980 c
Kai, Nielsen. “Cosmopolitan Nationalism”. The Monist 82, No. 3 (1999): 446-468 Retrieved from URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27903647 Accessed on: 22/09/2014 07 162
Kamat, Anant Raoji. “Ethno-Linguistic Issues in Indian Federal Context”, Economic and Political Weekly 15 no.24/25 (June 1980): pgs. 14-21,1053-1055+1057-1059+1061- 1063+1065-1066.
Kant, Immaneul. What is Enlightenment?. (1784) URL http://www.artoftheory.com/what- is-enlightenment_immanuel-kant/
Kasprzak, Michal, “Nationalism and Internationalism: Theory and Practice of Marxist Nationality Policy from Marx and Engels to Lenin and the Communist Workers’ Party of Poland”, (PhD. Diss. University of Toronto, 2012)
Kedourie, Elie. Nationalism, Oxford: Blackwell, 1994.
Khuhro, Hameeda. Muhammad Ayub Khuhro: Juratmandana Siyasi Zindagi, Sindhica Academy, 2002.
Kohn, Hans. “Romanticism and the Rise of German Nationalism”, The Review of Politics 12 no. 4 (1950): 443-72
Levins Richard. “Continuing Sources of Marxism Looking for the Movement”, An Independent Socialist Magazine, (2011), 39
Leoussi, Athena S. ed. Encyclopaedia of Nationalism, Transaction Publishing, 2000.
Lenin, Vladimir Ilʹich. Marxism and Nationalism, (1916), 226.
Lenin, Vladimir Ilʹich. "A Caricature of Marxism and 'Imperialist Economism'", in Collected Works, XIX, (1916): 251.
Löwy, Micheal. 1998. Fatherland or Mother Earth? Essays on the National Question. London: Pluto.
Luxemburg, Rosa. “The Genius Pamphlet: The Crisis in the German Social Democracy”, A Young Socialist Perspective, 1915
Marx, Karl 2014, Communist Manifesto 1948, London, Chiron Academic Press 163
Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy, ed. Lewis S. Feuer, quoted in Avineri, “Marxism and Nationalism”, 638
Memon, Naseer. Sindh Ji Taraqi, Randakoon ain Rasta, Sindhi Adabi Sangat, 2007.
McLellan,David Marxism after Marx, (Palgrave MacMillan, 1979) 9-12
Mitchell, ‘Emile Durkheim and the Philosophy of Nationalism’, Political Science Quarterly 46 no.1 (1931): 87-106
Mujahid, Sharif Al. “Review of An Illustrated History of Sindh by Suhail Zaheer Lari”, Islamic Studies 44 no. 1, (2005): p.125-129.
Munck, Ronaldo. The Difficult Dialogue: Marxism and Nationalism, Zed Books, 1986.
Nielsen, Kai. “Cosmopolitan Nationalism”. The Monist 82, no. 3, (1999): 446-468.
Nielsen, Kai. “Toward a liberal socialist cosmopolitan nationalism”. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 11 no.4 (2003): p. 437-463, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0967255032000136470/10.1080/0967255032000136470
Nimni, Emphraim J. Marxism and Nationalism: Theoretical Origins of a Political Crisis, London: Pluto Press, 1991.
Nussbaum, Martha ‘Patriotism and cosmopolitanism’, (1996). Quoted in Martha Nussbaum et al. Eds. For love of country: Debating the limits of patriotism, Boston: Beacon Press, 1999, 2-20
Nussbaum, Martha. Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal education, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.
Oldenburg, Philip. “A Place Insufficiently Imagined’: Language, Belief, and the Pakistan Crisis of 1971”. Journal of Asian Studies 44 no. 4(1985): p. 711–33.
Ozkirimli, Umut. Theoroes of Nationalism: A Criticial Introduction, Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. 164
Palijo, Rasul Bakhsh. Subuh Theendo, Awami Kitab Ghar,1973.
Palijo, Rasul Bakhsh. Subuh Theendo, Sardar Yaseen Press,1978.
Palijo, Rasul Bakhsh. Watoon weeha thiyoon, Awami Kitab Ghar, 1979.
Palijo, Rasul Bakhsh. Galhiyoon Ganwaran joon, Awami Kitab Ghar, 1980.
Palijo, Rasul Bakhsh. Dhararanja Dhaka, Awami Kitab Ghar,1985.
Palijo, Rasul Bakhsh. Cha Sindhiyan lai mulk isiyasat haram ahay, Awami Kitab Ghar, 1999.
Palijo, Rasul Bakhsh. Siyasi adab (three volumes). Centre for Peace and Civil Society, 2007.
Petrus, Joseph A.” Marx and Engels on the National Question”, The Journal of Politics 33 No. 3 (Aug. 1971): 800
Qureshi, S.M,M. “Pakistani Nationalism Reconsidered”, Pacific Affairs 45 no. 4 (1972): 556- 572.
Rawls, John. Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press,1993, 15-22.
Renan, Ernest. ‘What is a Nation?’, quoted in Homi K. Bhabha ed., ” Nation and Narration”, London: Routledge 8 no.22 (1990).
Rousseau, Jean- Jacques. The Social Contract, Trans. George Douglas Howard Cole, (1762), accessed on June 19, 2015 https://www.ucc.ie/archive/hdsp/Rousseau_contrat-social.pdf
Robbins, Bruce. “Introduction part I: Actually existing cosmopolitanism”, (1998). Quoted in Pheng Cheah & Bruce Robbins, Eds. Cosmopolitics: Thinking and feeling beyond the nation Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1998, 1-19.
Ryan, Barry & Worth, Owen. “On the contemporary left nationalism”, Capital and Class, 34, No. 1 (2010): 57 165
Samad, Yonus. “Pakistan or Punjabistan: Crisis of National Identity.” (1995). Quoted in Gurharpal Singh and Ian Talbot eds., “Punjabi Identity: Continuity and Change”, South Asia Books, 1996, 61–86.
Syed, Ghulam Murtaza. Sindhi Boli and culture, Sindhica Academy, 1980.
Syed, Ghulam Murtaza. Naeen Sindh lai Jadojahd, New Fields Publications, 1989.
Syed, Ghulam Murtaza. Sindhu Desh Cho ane Cha lai, Sindhica Academy, 1990.
Syed, Ghulam Murtaza. Sindh Galhaithi, Sindhica Academy :New Fields Publications, 1992.
Syed, Ghulam Murtaza. Pakistan hanay tutan ghurjay, New Fields Publications, 1997.
Sieyes, Emmanuel Joseph. & Sonenscher, Micheal ed. Political Writings: With an Introduction and Translation of What is the Third Estate, Hackett Publishing Company, 2003.
Sen, Amartiya. The Country of First Boys. Oxford Press,2016.
Smith, Anthony. D. Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era, Polity Press, 1996.
Smith, Anthony. D. Nationalism and Modernism: A Critical Survey of Recent Theories of Nations and Nationalism, Routledge, 1998.
Soto, Jesús Huerta de, “A theory of Liberal Nationalism” Il Politico 60, No. 4 (175) (Ottobre- Dicembre 1995): 583-598. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43101600 Accessed: 24-11- 2016 05:45 UTC
Stargardt, Nicholas. Origin of the Constructivist Theory of the Nation. In S. Periwa ed. Notions of Nationalism, Budapest, Central European University Press, 1995, 83-105.
Suny, Ronald Grigor. & Eley, Geoff. eds. Becoming National: A Reader, Oxford University Press, 1996. 166
Syed, Ahmed Khan. "The Idea of a Pakistani Nationhood." Polity Press12, no. 4 (1980): 575- 97
Tagore. Rabindranath. Nationalism in India, Macmillan, 1917.
Tambiah, Stanley Jeyaraja. Leveling Crowds: Ethnonationalist Conflicts and Collective Violence in South Asia. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press,1996.
Tan, Kok-Chor. “Liberal Nationalism and Cosmopolitan Justice. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice”, Springer Stable 5 no. 4 (2002): 431-461 htp://www.jstor.org/stable/27504253. Accessed on 22/09/2014 07
Varouxakis, Georgios. Mill’s Theory of Nationality and Nationalism. Quoted in Leoussi, Athena S. ed. Encyclopaedia of Nationalism, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers. (2001): 178-82
Wallerstein, Immanuel Neither patriotism nor cosmopolitanism, (1996). In Martha Nussbaum & Joshua Cohen Eds., For love of country: Debating the limits of patriotism, Boston: Beacon Press, 1996, 122-124
Weber, Eugen. “Nationalism, Socialism, and National-Socialism in France”, French Historical Studies 2, No. 3 (Spring, 1962): 273-307. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/285883 Accessed: 16-11-2016 04:57 UTC
Weber, Max. ‘The Nation’, (1948). Quoted in Smith, Anthony D. & Hutchinson, John. ed. “Nationalism: Critical Concepts in Political Science”, London, and New York: Routledge 1-5, (2000): 5-12
Williams, Louis Blakeney. “The Cosmopolitan Nationalism and Modernist History of Rabindranath Tagore and W. B. Yeats” The American Historical Review 112, No. 1 (Feb., 2007), 69-100. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4136007. Accessed: 22/09/2014 07:43 167
Louise Blakeney Williams. “Overcoming the ‘Contagion of Mimicry’: The Cosmopolitan Nationalism and Modernist History of Rabindranath Tagore and W. B. Yeats”, The American Historical Review 112 No. 1 (Feb. 2007): pp. 69-100
Wolfe, Beltrum D. Marxism One Hundred Years in the Life of a Doctrine, Dial Press, 1965, 24
Zaidi, S. Akbar. “Sindhi vs Mohajir in Pakistan: Contradiction, Conflict, Compromise”, Economic and Political Weekly 26 no. 20, (1991): 1295-1302.
Zinoviev and Lenin, Socialism and War, 235, quoted in Horace B. Davis, “Lenin and Nationalism: The Redirection of the Marxist Theory of Nationalism 1903-1917, Science & Society 31, No. 2(1967): 177
Zwick, “The Marxist Roots of National Communism,”. Canadeia Review of Studies in Nationalism 3 No. 2, (1976): 134