Introduction
Just like a celebrity, the ideas of Benedict Anderson need no introduction. The scholar, theorist and modern philosopher holds the most peculiar ideas about nationalism. Benedict believes that the nation is an imagined community based on the absence of some factors. On the contrary, Partha Chatterjee believes that there was a big difference between the form of nationalism in Asia and Africa, and that in European countries. Partha Chatterjee argues that the main differences lie in the forces and reasons behind such nationalism. Worth mentioning is that nationalism is defined by the same metrics by the two scholars, but the reasons for nationalism differ. While Benedict Anderson believes that the modular nationalism form in Europe can be fitted into the southern Asia countries, and especially the Indian subcontinent, Partha Chatterjee believes that there is absolutely no comparison to be made between the states of southern Asia and those of Europe. This paper is an explication that endeavors to explain how South Asian states are not condemned to embrace the modular' form of nationalism that Benedict Anderson associated with the rise of nationalism in Europe. The paper seeks to explain why the modular form of democracy embraced by European nations cannot be adopted in the nations of Southern Asia.
The background of Anderson’s Theory
Between the years 1978 and 1979, Cambodia, Vietnam and China engaged each other in war. This marked the very beginning of Benedicts Anderson’s journey into understanding what nationalism really is. Benedict Anderson could not help but wonder, what strong force nationalism was, as to cause three communist nations to engage in an armed conflict (Singh 20006). The communist nations engaged one another in the armed conflict because of, according to Benedict Anderson, the pride of the leaders arising from the beliefs that their countries were superior or better as compared to their neighbors. Historical research into the mater indicates that the reasons behind the wars were not worth the struggle. Barnett (1992) explains that, as much as the reasons were not worth it, they came at a delicate time – a moment when romanticism in nationalism was at its peak. In his studies, Benedict Anderson associated the rise of nationalism in Europe, with what was happening in Asia. Unfortunately, according to Partha Chatterjee, Anderson was wrong, as the form of nationalism in Europe was not the same force taking charge in Asia.
In the reasoning of Anderson, nationalism was a result of the absence of various factors. Benedict Anderson describes the nations as imagined communities. In his words, “it (a nation) is an imagined political community—and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign. . . because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even here of them, yet in the mind of each lives the image of their communion.” According to Benedict Anderson, nationalism is a force and endeavors to create the psychological unit that people refer to as a nation. According to Matthew (2003) Anderson’s understanding of a nation holds much truth and could be the reason for the rise of nationalism in South Asian countries. The imagined unit, is referred to as ‘imagined’ because it cannot be defined with precision, the people in the boundaries of the perceived nation do not know one another, and have probably never met. The need for affiliation and the psychological need to defend such affiliation have been explained as the main cause of the rise of nationalism. Before considering the potency of Anderson’s assumption, it is important to have a brief description of what defined nationalism in South Asian countries.
Benedict Anderson’s theory of nationalism
Benedict Anderson has been known as the most controversial theorists in matters of history and state building. Apparently, Anderson perceives such forces as nationalism as some forms of unfounded forces because in his thinking, the struggle for nationalism does not benefit the nationalists in anyway because the results of nationalism cannot be substantiated. The nation, being an imagined community in his thinking, is not, in realism, worth the struggle. In his book Imagined communities, Anderson explains that prior to nationalism, there were big and notable religious communities. Such communities began to decline as the people embraced nationalism. What Anderson tries to communicate is the reality that nationalism was partly a result of the decline in religions (Matthew 2003). The decline of major religions caused nationalism in Europe, according to the explanations of Benedict Anderson. In explicating the idea of nationalism, Benedict Anderson argued that the emergence of printing press under capitalism was one of the strongest causes of the will and power to rise up in the fight for the nations (Singh 2006). Fundamentally, benedict Anderson believes that nationalism came as a decline in the script languages such as Latin, following the fall of religions in the European continent. It is this theory that his modular form of nationalism is based.
Partha Chattergee’s ideas of nationalism in south Asian countries
According to Chattergee, the main causes of nationalism in South Asian countries are three. The first cause of the spirit of nationalism, according to Chattergee, is the actuality that there were strong indigenous religions. The indigenous religions bound the people together in such a manner that they were meant to hold the same conception of freedom, unity and sovereignty. Talking of the relationship between religion and nationalism, Dahl (1998) says that Buddhism is the religion worth noting. The Buddhist played a critical role in motivating nationalism in Asia. The Buddhists, both in India and the neighboring countries held the belief that unity in religion was the beginning of unity in the entire region. The first religious shot at democracy and nationalism was the formation of the Young Man Buddhist Association in the year 1906. The radical organization lobbied for various needs of the people, while emphasizing collective efforts in trying to bring their national identity into being. The association whose roots were traced to India was among the very first attempts aimed at pulling people together.
David and Krishna (2008) explain that the second cause of nationalism in south Asian countries was the rise of the educated elite. This was a middle class that came as a result of the western education. The elite were forceful in enlightening the people on the need for freedom and self-determination. The elite acted as the leaders of the nationalist efforts as they had the arguments to support their bid. The incitement brought about by the middle class made the entire community of south Asia move towards political sovereignty. The most significant effort motivated by the educated elite is People’s Action Party. The political formation was led and initiated by the English educated young men of Chinese decent.
Partha (2011) explains that the third cause of nationalism in South Asian countries was the presence of the radicals. Such radicals were defined by the struggle between communism and capitalism. Apparently, the communists in the region brought a fresh breath of energy into the rise of nationalism. The communists in the areas emphasized the need for collectivism in fighting for self-determination. Michael (2003) describes the socialism as the main cause of unity in the south Asian countries. Socialism ideas were spearheaded by the communists of the time. The people that were associated with communism were radical in making known their claims and spirited fight for self-determination. Their efforts were quite clear as they led and instigated revolts. The revolts, which began as minute demonstrations turned into violent engagements later on.
Modular nationalism in Europe
Among the works that best explain the nationalist movement in European countries, are such pieces as Anderson’s Imagined Communities. The book spells out different ideas on the rise of nationalism in the region, explaining the solid causes, but giving their explanations different approaches. Notably, Benedict Anderson’s explanation has been described as the most controversial explanation of nationalism. Benedict Anderson’s ideas are prominently applicable to European countries, where the people were trying to build and strengthen nations for wholly different reasons. Among the key reasons for such nationalism is the idea that the leaders were in pursuit of superiority and national pride (Smith 2010).
While this is true in the European context, its prevalence in Asian nationalism remains unexplained. Notably, printing press played a critical role in communicating the inherent ideas of the people as they stood in opposition with those held by the divine rule. The governments in power, the foreign ones for that matter, were dominating the print media in south Asia in such a manner that the revolutionary ideas were not publicly communicated. On the contrary, capitalism had played a critical role in communicating such ideas in Europe, since the people, especially in western Europe had invested in the private sector to the extent that they could inform the public through print press, of the ongoing struggles by strong social and political associations. Summarily, nationalism in Europe was aimed at superiority. The nationalists of the European countries were endeavoring to have substantial control of both eastern and western Europe. It may be important to mention that European nationalism had unique aims.
Differences between nationalism in Europe and nationalism in south Asian countries
For the above inconsistencies, the theories of Benedict Anderson do not explain the rise of nationalism in south Asia. The case of the European countries is quite different since the fall of such religious affiliations as Christendom marked the beginning of nationalist efforts. Chatterjee explains that the form of nationalism in Europe, as perceived and explained by Benedict Anderson, is not the form of nationalism that south Asian countries and especially India are condemned to embrace. Notably, the nationalist movement in south Asian region was one characterized by violent revolutions against the colonialists. Worth mentioning is the fact that according to Partha Chatterjee, the main difference between European nationalism and the form of nationalism south Asian countries lies in the fact that the Asian version of the idea was aimed at self-determination and was motivated by the west. Partha (2011) therefore argues that the South Asian countries have absolutely no equipment and political structures that can support the modular form of nationalism in European countries. However, it is important to mention that European nationalism and Asian nationalism are not worth comparing, especially considering that they had differing objectives.
Democracy in India
India is the seventh largest country by geographical area in the entire globe. A constitutional nation, with the longest written constitution, India has both a president and a prime minister. Currently, the Indian prime minister is Manohan Singh. The prime minister is the head of government, and enjoys a majority of the elective seats in parliament. The elected president, currently, Pranab Murkherjee, is the head of state. The democracy in India is defined by the presence of four national parties, with the Indian National Congress party having been in power for three quarters of the time since the country gained independence from Great Britain. The country’s democracy allows for elections after every 5years. Being the second most populous country in the world, only after China, the population is one of the factors affecting democracy in India. Apparently, there are other factors affecting democracy, and among the most prominent are such issues as religion, the caste system as well as the religion. The country has 28 states and has been under a de facto one party system for quite a long time since independence.
Democracy in Afghanistan
For a long time, democracy in Afghanistan has been described as wishful thinking. Wishful thinking in the sense that democracy cannot come to Afghanistan even through force. The country was established on the 30th day of April 1979. Its existence ended in the year 1992, on the 28th day of April. During the existence of the republic of Afghanistan – originally, referred to as the democratic republic of Afghanistan and later the republic of Afghanistan, dictatorship was an integral feature of governance. For instance, the communist people’s democratic party of Afghanistan came to power through a coup that saw the ousting of the unpopular rule f Mohammed Daoud Khan in 1978. In 1979, the interventions from the Soviet Union saw the assassination of Amin, a militant leader that was associated with power struggles in Afghanistan. Considering that the country was established and existed through the cold war, the United States was hesitant in intervening, while Russia was already in the region with its communist agenda. Recently, though, the country has seen prominent US presence, with the aim of reinstating democracy and achieving social development in the country. Prior to the coming of the United States, Afghanistan was socially unstable with human rights being abused by the anarchy. Women, for example, were not allowed to participate in public decision making, including participation in voting processes. Additionally, women could not access such facilities as education. The country is still under reconstruction, with the United States playing a key role in the nation building, in search of democracy, which, according to many, will not come anytime soon.
Democracy in the United Kingdom
The United Kingdom is synonymous with democracy. Apparently, the United Kingdom political decision making systems are the benchmark of democracy in the modern world. What this means is the reality that the state of democracy in the United Kingdom is exceptionally stable. The United Kingdom, a constitutional monarchy, has a system of democracy referred to as representative democracy. In representative democracy, the people vote for members of parliament, who represent them in decision making (Heo & Tan 2001). Worth mentioning is the fact that there is a significant difference between direct democracy and the representative democracy. In the direct democracy, people of majority age meet in public occasions and unanimously decide on what should be done regarding a public issue or concern. On the contrary, in representative democracy, the people look up to their leaders to decide for them. In UK, the people vote for their members of parliament. Such members represent areas referred to as constituencies. The lower house, the House of Commons is made up of such members of parliament. Elections are held every five years and the head of government, the prime minister is chosen.
Comparing Afghanistan and Indian democracy to the United Kingdom
Clearly, the UK democracy is quite different from that of Afghanistan. Notably, the United Kingdom is considerably stable. Conversely, Afghanistan is a country that does not exist at all considering that the perceived democracy is more of anarchy presently. Additionally, the Afghanistan system of democracy is in such a way that it has been characterized by dictatorships for quite a long time. Again, the rights are not equal across the genders, with regard to political decision making. On the contrary, the United Kingdom embraces equal rights and is a representative democracy. There have never been instances of dictatorships and external intervention. Additionally, there are many differences in terms of ideology. While Afghanistan is a socialist state, the UK is purely a communist state. Therefore nationalism in the two countries is quite different.
In comparing India and the UK, it is important to mention that the UK is capitalist while India is a socialist country. The nations cannot be favorably compared, considering that India was a colony of the great Britain. The Indian democracy is considerably young, despite the fact that India is among the oldest civilizations. It is critically important to note that India is a constitutional republic with the longest written constitution (Heo & Tan 2001). On the contrary, the UK is a constitutional monarchy, with both written and oral laws. Additionally, India has a system with both a president and a prime minister. On the contrary, the UK has a prime minister, who is the head of government, working in consultation with the queen, who is the ceremonial head of state. Summarily, therefore, the countries of south Asia cannot be compared to the European countries on both matters – nationalism and democracy. Fundamentally, this is because the European countries were never colonized, like the south Asian countries.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is important to mention that the ideas of Benedict Anderson and those of Partha Chatterjee cannot be compatible, especially in relation to the nationalist movement in south Asia. Essentially, the ideas held by the scholar are inclined to capitalism and cannot be sustained where the radical communist forces are the factors defining the political climate. Apparently, the above explained histories of nationalism show many inherent differences between the modular form of Europe and the radical associations of south Asia. The fact that Benedict explained religion and nationalism as having inverse relationships does not hold water in Asia. Additionally, Benedict’s explanation of anti-colonial nationalism appears flawed. Assuming that nationalism has roots in the USA may not be a potent assumption in the modern world. Chatterjee’s opposition to Anderson’s ideas is therefore valid. Summarily, Apparently, the major differences between European nationalism and the form of nationalism in south Asian countries is the reality that in Europe, the people were fighting for superiority while the people of south Asia were fighting for self-determination and freedom from the colonial masters.
Reference List
Barnett R. 1992, Political Elites in Afghanistan: Rentier State Building, Rentier State Wrecking, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 24:1, pp. 77-99
Dahl, R. 1998, Chapters 12-14 in On Democracy, New Haven: Yale, pp. 145-165.
David B. E. 1998, Learning from the Swat Pathans: Political Leadership in Afghanistan, 1978-97, American Ethnologist, 25:4. pp. 712-728.
David N. Gellner and Krishna Hacchethu, 2008, Introduction, Local Democracy in South Asia: Microprocesses of Democratization, Gellner and Hacchethu ed. New Delhi: Sage. pp. 13-21.
Matthew J. Nelson, 2003, Afghanistan Reader, pp. 1-20.
Michael Hutt, 2003, Introduction, Unbecoming Citizens: Culture, Nationhood, and the Flight of Refugees from Bhutan. Delhi: Oxford. pp. 1-14.
Partha Chatterjee, 2011, Lineages of Political Society: Studies in Postcolonial Democracy, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 1-28
Singh, N. 2006. Nationalism. New Delhi, Mittal Publications
Smith Politics,, A. D. 2010. Nationalism: theory, ideology, history. Cambridge, UK, Polity
Spencer, P., & Wollman, H. 2002. Nationalism: a critical introduction. London, SAGE.
Wangchuk, T. 2004, The Middle Path to Democracy in the Kingdom of Bhutan, Asian Survey, 44:6, pp. 836-855.
Heo, U., & Tan, A. C. (2001). Democracy and economic growth: A causal analysis. Comparative 463-473.
