Nationalism and Separatism Sun-Ki Chai Th e historical era following World War II is often referred to as the era of decolo- nization, the time when the former European powers, as well as America and Japan, gave up their overseas empires and dozens of new sovereign countries came into being. However, it could just as easily be called the era of nationalist separatism, as the sheer number of ethnic and pan-ethnic movements seeking independence from the political status quo multiplied greatly. Relevance Th e relevance of these movements is clear, since they fundamentally altered the shape of the world’s geopolitical map. Th ey brought into being dozens of new countries and changed the boundaries of dozens of existing ones. Th ey also al- tered the world balance of power by creating an “unaligned bloc” of independent countries who were not willing to stand under the shadow of the United States or its great Cold War adversary, the Soviet Union. Finally, they set the stage for the most recent period of post–Cold War history, in which ethnicity-based national- ism plays a major, or even dominant, role in international confl ict. Origins While there were many causes for the origins of these various types of national- ism, they can be attributed to two major causes: Th e fi rst related to the events leading up to and following the dismantling of the colonization system, which raised numerous questions about what the basis ought to be for the resulting newly independent countries. Th e other major cause was the rise of cultural sen- timents (particularly in Western countries), that placed a great deal of impor- tance on cultural identity. Th is in turn strengthened the impetus for nationalist movements even in well-established, modern countries. NATIONS AND NATIONALISM: VOLUME 4 (1989–PRESENT) 111_NANAGP1C_Vol_4_Nat'lism&Separ14601_NANAGP1C_Vol_4_Nat'lism&Separ1460 11460460 22/14/2008/14/2008 55:02:10:02:10 PPMM NATIONALISM AND SEPARATISM 1461 Dimensions Th e separatisms and regionalisms that occurred were so varied that it is diffi cult to make generalizations regarding their eff ects on diff erent groups. However, admittedly with some simplifi cation, it is possible to divide them into three dif- ferent major categories: the anticolonial, the postcolonial, and the modern in- dustrialized versions. Even in each category, there are numerous dimensions of variation that cannot be completely covered in a single chapter. Moreover, be- cause of the huge number of movements that arose and changed shape during this period, we will have to focus on discussing large cases and major trends rather than encompass the entire picture. Anticolonial Separatism and Regionalism While process called “decolonization” is conveniently dated as beginning imme- diately after the surrender of the Axis forces in 1945, the dismantling of colonies itself started earlier and has been a long and drawn-out one. Even if we exclude Spain and Portugal’s loss of their Latin American colonies in the 19th century, there had been some earlier attrition in the Western colonial project, most notably with the nominal independence of Arab, post-Ottoman, League of Nations Mandates oc- curring in the 1930s and during the War itself. Mandates were territories that were given special status under the Article 22 of the League’s covenant, which promised most Mandates eventual independence. And while the single-largest ex-colony, India and Pakistan, gained independence in 1947, most African colonies did not do so until the 1960s or later. Even today, Western powers retain vestiges of their over- seas possessions in the Pacifi c and Caribbean, so the process is not complete. Because of the protracted dying throes of colonialism, much of the separatist nationalism of the postwar era was originally directed against those colonial powers that remained in place, or were aimed at shaping the political confi gura- tion and boundaries of postindependence states. In British India, the focus by 1945 was on the latter. Th e devastation of the British economy in the aftermath of World War II led to a quickly moving consen- sus within Britain that the maintenance of its huge colonial possessions in South Asia, encompassing many times the population of the British Isles themselves, was unsustainable and an impediment to postwar reconstruction. Th e defeat of Winston Churchill by Clement Atlee’s Labour Party in the election of 1945 re- moved the main impediment to this divestment of what was increasingly seen as an onerous responsibility by the British public. In this atmosphere, Indian domestic politics turned into a jockeying for infl u- ence over the disposition of independent India. Most notable here was the con- fl ict between the Congress Party, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, and the Muslim League, led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, over Jinnah’s “two-nation” theory through which he sought to promulgate the idea of a separate independent Muslim state, Paki- stan. Th e origins of the Congress-Muslim League confl ict were long-seated and NATIONS AND NATIONALISM: VOLUME 4 (1989–PRESENT) 111_NANAGP1C_Vol_4_Nat'lism&Separ14611_NANAGP1C_Vol_4_Nat'lism&Separ1461 11461461 22/14/2008/14/2008 55:02:14:02:14 PPMM 1462 NATIONALISM AND SEPARATISM complex, but what is important to note is that, despite the religion-based nature of their confl ict, both parties were led primarily not by religious extremists but by men of quite pragmatic, and if we may say so, secular, outlooks. Nonetheless, by the last preindependence elections of 1946, there was little room for compromise, as Congress was committed to governing alone and the Muslim League was equally committed to the idea that Muslims would be oppressed in an undivided India. Th e communal slaughter that followed the partition into independent India and Pakistan in 1947 was one of the great human tragedies of the 20th century. Whether or not the human cost of maintaining an undivided India in an atmo- sphere of incessant religious strife would have been greater or lesser than the cost of partition is a question that is very diffi cult to answer, though this has not stopped many from trying. Moreover, the debate over the “two-nation” versus unifi ed vision of the subcontinent continues to be a boulder in the way of improv- ing relations between the two countries, manifested in the way that each side frames the status of Kashmir (a situation that is discussed in the next section). Th e decolonization process in Northeast Asia, though smaller in scale than that of South Asia, was equally seen as inevitable as World War II reached its con- clusion. Th e defeat of Japan meant that the maintenance of its colonies in Korea, Taiwan, and Manchuria was out of the question. Furthermore, due to the much more constricted room for indigenous party politics that the Japanese colonial powers had allowed, there was greater uncertainty over the outcome of contesta- tion among local politicians regarding the post-Japanese political system. Th e main question in the case of Taiwan, and to a lesser extent, Manchuria, was whether possession would revert to whichever Chinese government would be able to take power in the aftermath of the Japanese withdrawal. Taiwan was a peripheral domain that had only been offi cially incorporated into Chinese terri- tory in the 19th century, while Manchuria, the ancestral home of the deposed Ching Dynasty, had therefore long maintained a separate identity from the ethnic Chinese (Han) core, despite Manchuria and China being politically unifi ed for centuries. However, in neither case, at the time, was there a movement for Tai- wanese or Manchurian separatism strong enough to seriously challenge the no- tion held by both the Communists and Nationalists that both territories were “naturally” a part of China. Korea, on the other hand, was a historically unifi ed state with a strong sense of common identity, hence division of the peninsula as a viable ideology was never seriously raised. Th is in turn made the partition into North and South that occurred upon Japanese withdrawal much more traumatic for Koreans than the division between Taiwan and the Chinese mainland that oc- curred a few years later. In Southeast Asia, the situation in the Philippines was the closest to that of South and Northeast Asia, with independence promised by an American govern- ment that was retreating into immediate postwar isolationism prior to the chill of the Cold War. Th e Dutch and British East Indies were a diff erent situation, as various events conspired against immediate independence. NATIONS AND NATIONALISM: VOLUME 4 (1989–PRESENT) 111_NANAGP1C_Vol_4_Nat'lism&Separ14621_NANAGP1C_Vol_4_Nat'lism&Separ1462 11462462 22/14/2008/14/2008 55:02:14:02:14 PPMM NATIONALISM AND SEPARATISM 1463 Th e Indonesian nationalist movement for independence from the Dutch was perhaps the strongest and most sustained in the colonized world next to that of India, yet it was internally divided and faced a colonial power that was far less willing to give up power than were the British. Th e active collaboration of many Indonesian nationalist leaders, including Sukarno and Hatta, with the Japanese was an additional factor that reduced international pressure for Dutch with- drawal in the postwar era. Hence, although the Japanese passed power over to Indonesian nationalists as their own authority slipped away, the Dutch immedi- ately sought to reassert their control over their erstwhile possessions. It was only after four years of protracted warfare that the Dutch were forced to withdraw, and independence was achieved. In the British East Indies, the colonial power had promised independence by 1949, yet another eight years were required before that actually occurred. Th is was not due to the lack of any nationalist political activity within the country, but due in part to two factors.