All seven questions from the exercises of NCERT’s Political Theory, Chapter 7 “Nationalism”, in the English edition’s own wording, each with a complete model answer. The questions the chapter asks in its activity boxes and in its box on the Basque movement are answered at the end. Try answering on your own first, then compare.
1 How a Nation Differs from Other Forms of Collective Belonging
Q. How is a nation different from other forms of collective belonging?
Answer: A nation is not like a family, a tribe or a clan. In a family or tribe, members are linked by face-to-face relationships or by traceable ties of descent, so every member either knows the others personally or can trace the link connecting them if needed. As a member of a nation, however, we may never come face to face with most of our fellow nationals, and we need not share any tie of descent with them at all. Yet a nation still exists, because a nation is essentially an “imagined” community, held together not by personal acquaintance or descent but by its members’ shared beliefs, their sense of a continuing history, their attachment to a particular territory, and their shared political ideals.
2 The Right to National Self-Determination
Q. What do you understand by the right to national self-determination? How has this idea resulted in both formation of and challenges to nation-states?
Answer: The right to national self-determination is the claim that a nation should be able to govern itself and decide its own future, and should be recognised by the international community as a distinct political entity or state. This idea helped FORM many new nation-states: in nineteenth-century Europe under the notion of “one culture, one state”, and again after the First World War when the Treaty of Versailles created a number of small, newly independent states. The same right was asserted by the national liberation movements of Asia and Africa against colonial rule, which led to the formation of many independent nation-states there. But the same idea also became a CHALLENGE, because no reorganisation of boundaries could give every cultural group its own separate state. As a result, the newly formed states still contained minority communities, who in turn began raising their own self-determination claims, so the very nation-states that had won independence through struggle found themselves resisting minority demands within their own borders.
3 Nationalism as Both a Uniting and a Dividing Force
Q. “We have seen that nationalism can unite people as well as divide them, liberate them as well as generate bitterness and conflict”. Illustrate your answer with examples.
Answer: Both faces of nationalism can be seen through history. As a UNITING force: in nineteenth-century Europe, nationalism unified small kingdoms into the larger nation-states we now know as Germany and Italy, and it drove independence movements in India and other former colonies to unite people against colonial rule. As a DIVIDING force: the same nationalism contributed to the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires in the early twentieth century, and it continues to fuel separatist movements today, such as the Quebecois in Canada, the Basques in Spain, and the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq, all of whom struggle to divide existing states. As a LIBERATING force, nationalism freed India and other colonies from foreign control; but the same idea of “one culture, one state” applied after the First World War also generated bitterness and conflict, as redrawn boundaries displaced millions of people from their homes and many became victims of communal violence. Nationalism therefore does not have one fixed effect; it can be liberating or divisive depending on the context in which it is used.
4 Descent, Language, Religion, Ethnicity: No Single Common Factor
Q. Neither descent, nor language, nor religion or ethnicity can claim to be a common factor in nationalisms all over the world. Comment.
Answer: This statement is correct. Canada includes both English-speaking and French-speaking people, and India has a huge number of languages spoken across its regions, yet both are single nations, which shows a common language is not essential. Many nations similarly have no common religion, and no fixed pattern of race or descent is shared by all nations either. A nation is not built on any one physical characteristic; it rests instead on its members’ shared beliefs, their shared sense of history, their attachment to a territory, and their shared political ideals. This is exactly why it is considered better to imagine the nation in political terms (a shared constitution and set of values) rather than in cultural terms (one language, religion or descent), because only the political framing can stay genuinely inclusive.
5 Factors Behind the Emergence of Nationalist Feelings
Q. Illustrate with suitable examples the factors that lead to the emergence of nationalist feelings.
Answer: Nationalist feelings are chiefly driven by four factors. Shared beliefs, as when the members of a team believe they belong together. A shared sense of history, as when Nehru pointed to India’s civilisational continuity to build a sense of Indian nationhood. Attachment to territory, as when the Jewish people always regarded Palestine as their original homeland, or when the Indian nation identifies with its own rivers and mountains. And shared political ideals, such as agreement on values like democracy, secularism and liberalism. Beyond these, the desire for freedom from colonial rule (India and other countries of Asia and Africa) and separatist aspirations (the Basques, the Kurds) have also given rise to strong nationalist feelings.
6 Democracy versus Authoritarianism in Handling Conflicting Nationalist Aspirations
Q. How is a democracy more effective than authoritarian governments in dealing with conflicting nationalist aspirations?
Answer: Authoritarian governments usually try to suppress nationalist demands by forcing one cultural identity on everyone or by repression, as the Spanish dictator Franco did by banning the Basque language, and this only deepens resentment. A democracy, by contrast, recognises minority identities by granting constitutional protection for their language, culture and religion, and sometimes even the right to representation in legislative bodies; the Indian Constitution, for instance, has an elaborate set of provisions protecting religious, linguistic and cultural minorities. Considerable generosity and skill is needed to deal with such demands in a democratic manner. This lets people of different cultural identities co-exist as equal citizens, which makes it possible to accommodate nationalist aspirations without breaking the existing state apart into new ones.
7 The Limitations of Nationalism
Q. What do you think are the limitations of nationalism?
Answer: The biggest limitation of nationalism is that once it turns intolerant and demands a single, homogeneous identity from everyone, it can generate division, bitterness and violence, exactly the danger Tagore warned against when he said patriotism must never be allowed to triumph over humanity. Nationalism also cannot realistically give every distinct cultural group its own separate state, since that would create small states that are not economically or politically viable and would multiply the minority problem rather than solve it. Finally, nationalism carries the risk of suppressing a person’s other identities, such as gender, caste, religion, language or region, by forcing a single national identity on top of them, which runs against the inclusive spirit that democracy is meant to protect.
8 In-text Questions (asked within the chapter)
The chapter also asks questions in two “Let’s Do It” activity boxes and at the end of its box on the Basque movement. They are not in the exercise list, but they test the same ideas, so an answer to each is given here in the order the book prints them.
Let’s Do It 1. Identify any patriotic song in your language. How is the nation described in this song? Identify and watch any patriotic films in your language. How has nationalism been portrayed and its complexities worked out in these films?
How to do it: This is an activity, so the song and the film are your own choice. Read the song against the chapter’s four ideas about what makes a nation. Most patriotic songs describe the nation through its territory (its rivers, mountains and fields, the homeland as “motherland”), its history (past glory, sacrifices of freedom fighters) and shared belief (all of us belonging together), and some through shared political ideals such as freedom and equality. For the film, note whether nationalism is shown only as hostility to an enemy, or whether the film also works out its complexities: people of different languages, religions and regions standing together, the cost of conflict, and the difference between love for one’s country and hatred of others. Tagore’s warning in the chapter, that patriotism must never triumph over humanity, is a good test to apply to what the film shows.
Box: Demand for National Self-Determination in Basque. Do you think Basque nationalists are justified in demanding a separate nation? Is Basque a nation? What more would you like to know before you can answer this question? Can you think of similar examples from different parts of the world? Can you think of regions and groups in our country where such demands have been made?
Answer: The box gives arguments on both sides. For the demand: Basque nationalists say their culture is very different from Spanish culture; they have their own language that does not resemble Spanish; the hilly terrain makes the region geographically distinct; since Roman days the region never surrendered its autonomy, and its systems of justice, administration and finance were governed by its own arrangements; and Franco cut down this autonomy and banned the use of the Basque language in public places and even homes. Against it: the region is already recognised as an ‘autonomous’ region within the Spanish federation, Franco’s repressive measures have now been withdrawn, only one-third of the people of Basque understand the language today, and opponents say the separatists are trying to make political gains out of an issue already resolved. By the chapter’s own test, a nation exists when its members believe they belong together and share the aspiration to an independent political existence, so the Basques have a strong claim to be called a nation; but the chapter also argues that the solution to such claims usually lies in making existing states more democratic and equal rather than in creating new states. What more we would need to know: how many people in the region actually support separation, whether the autonomy now granted protects their language and culture, and how the non-Basque people living there would be treated. Similar examples from the chapter: the Quebecois in Canada, the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq, and the Tamils in Sri Lanka. In India, the chapter notes that the language of nationalism is also used by some groups; demands for separate statehood or greater autonomy have been raised in different regions, and the Indian Constitution responds to them through protections for religious, linguistic and cultural minorities.
Let’s Do It 2. Cut out clippings from various newspapers and magazines related to the demands of various groups in India and abroad for the right to self-determination. Form an opinion about the following: What are the reasons behind these demands? What strategies have they employed? Are their claims justified? What do you think could be the possible solution?
How to do it: Collect the clippings yourself and arrange them group by group. For each group, answer the four points. Reasons: look for the factors the chapter names, such as a distinct language or culture, a sense of a separate history, attachment to a homeland, and the feeling of being a disadvantaged minority. Strategies: note whether the group uses constitutional and democratic means (elections, petitions, negotiations) or violent ones, as the Basque box shows a movement can do both. Are the claims justified: weigh the group’s grievances against the chapter’s point that granting a separate state to every group that sees itself as a nation is impossible and probably undesirable, since it could create states too small to be viable and multiply the problem of minorities. Possible solution: the chapter’s own answer is to make existing states more democratic and equal, recognise group identities through constitutional protection of language, culture and religion, give representation where needed, and define national identity inclusively.