Chapter 1

What is a Nation?

About six thousand years ago, humans who had previously roamed as hunter gatherers, gained knowledge about growing food crops, formed groups, and settled down in suitable localities. These were places were water was available, the climate tolerable, and free from dangers that they were aware of.

They developed a common language, closely related animistic beliefs, and similar ways of living, all of which we would say was their culture.

When two such communities began competing for the same facilities, conflicts often arose and wars began. These conflicts and wars helped people to segregate themselves into communities that shared common characteristics.

The global population was small, under ten million, and possessions few, movement was easy. Thus at one stage in history, the world had people with similar characteristics and culture accumulated in different areas. They united for their protection and organised some form of government. These became races occupying different countries. They could be called nations and has a great degree of cohesion within themselves.

This is the first stage of formation of countries. They each had a distinct cultural set of people, whom we can call a nation.

At first they produced food and other necessities needed for their livelihood. In the course of time they produced enough of the essentials required and could engage themselves in producing articles outside their basic needs. The population increased and people started moving about, seeing places and engaging in exchange of goods and later in trade. This trade flourished in an orderly form about a thousand years ago. Between East and West the routes of trade were long. The names of silk route and spice route indicate the nature and popularity of such trade. This trade was between races.

By the sixteenth century this trade had become lucrative. Some European countries persued this trade aggressively and gradually established considerable control over the territories with which they traded, and maneuvered to convert that trade to their advantage. In the process they spread the idea that some races were superior to others and this is the reason for some races to be poor. Thus racism, as we know it in recent times was born, and flourished.

During the second millenium AD big wars took place and country boundaries were changed. When they demarkated the boundaries they did so often without regard to racial or language differences of the localities, instead drawing lines along geographical features.

Racism, trade, and the incorrect boundaries laid the basis for modern conflicts between states. To contain these conflicts the League of Nations and the United Nations were formed.

It is interesting to note that neither the League of Nations nor the United Nations documents, contain anything like a definition of what they mean by a Nation. They were formed like a club. The League of Nations started with a collection of 27 members, some independent states and some dominions or colonies. It was started in 1918 at the end of the first world war, and grew to 60 members by 1938. By the end of world war two it was dead. The new victorious states formed another organisation. This also has the name Nation on it and was called The United Nations. The structure was different. Like the League this too had an assembly, but had an inner, small circle called the security council, composed of five victorious powers and six others recommended by them to the general assembly for election. This too was formed like a club.

The key word in the formation of these bodies was Nation. No one worried about the definition to be given to that word, or found it too difficult to tackle. By selecting that word they recognised the high status it had, and by using it they conferred on it a higher status than it had. So all states desired to be a nation, thinking that it will give them membership to this exclusive club, and recognition of a higher status. It worked, and the UN that started in 1945 had 51 members in the early stage and grew to 183 in 2000. But are they all nations? They may be in name because of their membership of the UN.

Language should give expression to things as they are. If what exists changes then the lagging language tries to adapt itself anew to what exists. This seems to have happened to the word nation. The haziness of the idea is evident from the different meanings given to this word by the different dictionaries. They vary from dictionary to dictionary and with the age of the dictionary. The variations do reflect in some measure the change that has taken place on the ground.

The very early dictionaries refer to it as people of same stock and same country, and the later dictionaries to a large group of people living in one area with their own government, language, traditions etc.

We can do no better than to stick to convention and refer to the Concise Oxford dictionary. It says of nations:

"a large aggregate of people so closely associated with each other by factors such as common descent, language, culture, history, and occupation of the same territory, as to be identified as a distinct people, esp. when organised, or potentially organisable as a political state"

We can admire the ingenuity of this definition, especially? "organised or potentially organisable", but if we proceed to find out whether a group of people are a nation or not according to this definition we will run into difficulties. So let us proceed to explore, in other chapters on what it is that people seek in the idea of becoming a nation.

Chapter 2

What Do People Seek?

When we proceed to find out what it is that people are looking for, we come to a hazier area.

People's desires are not often explicit or exposed, and so may vary even more than the meaning of the word that we sought in the previous chapter.

The actions that people take would give a better indication. Most of the large conflicts and troubles in various parts of the world seem to be the result of a desire to create a stable wealthy nation. Examples include the troubles associated with the Serbs, Albanians, Irish, Scots, Welch, Hutus, Tutsies, Kashmiris, Nepalese, Burmese, Karens, Tamils, Singalese, Tibetans, Taiwanese, Chechnyans, Dayaks, Timorese, and so on. The list is very long.

They all profess to strive for a free and peaceful existence in the world. Such an existence they feel prevailed at one time in the early history of the world. But the world has changed much, and the search for such an existence now, gives rise to confrontations, conflicts and wars. This leads to pain and suffering. However people are prepared to undergo these for the sake of freedom for themselves and succeeding generations of their people. This feeling is initially expressed in novels, plays, newspapers, electronic media, in speeches, songs, slogans, placards etc., well before it solidifies to a war.

This desire for freedom seems to be a phenomenon widely prevalent in nature. Those who have watched the struggles of fish caught with the anglers' bait, of dogs cats and other animals caught and trying to free themselves, have seen this desire. All seem to go into very painful states in endeavouring to free themselves. In humans this same effort appears to grow as civilisation advances.

Gone are the days when slavery and serfdom were prevalent. The number of people volunteering into suicide seems to be increasing, indicating that for them life without freedom is not worth living.

At the same time we find evidence of great bonds between people, seen as friendship, attachment, love, etc. The difference between these two types of relationship lies in the type of association and interest. If the relationship is one of dislike and hatred it results in enmity and war. If it is one of attraction then it results in strong bonds and lasting friendship. This is so in the case of similar or dissimilar parties. Two humans can develop a friendship and a lasting bond if the relationship is suitable for it, whatever their origins. A similar result ensues even between humans and animals.

We are interested in the relationship of communities. Similar factors prevail and either friendship or enmity can develop and in the course of time, it can change too.

The Trade wars of the earlier periods gave the impression that people fight to retain their profit. People do that when they are free and are making profit. Such wars continue, but in today's world such benefits are reached by other means. Many are engaged in fighting out of some form of restriction, to free themselves. This is true more in the less developed countries.

The twentieth century brought about the liberation of many countries that suffered colonialism in some form or other. This overthrow of colonialism was carried out in the name of transferring power to the people. The fashion was to spread the democratic form of government as the means of transferring the power to the people. However several difficulties arose in the process of achieving these aims. Before the new countries could solve these problems the top powers formed a club and admitted states to that club and glorified the sovereignty the states had.

The top powers could not wait because they had to take measures to prevent dangerous wars similar to the two world wars in the first half of the twentieth century. The end result broadly is the prevention of big wars but a proliferation of small ones.

The second millenium AD has been characterised by a percolation of power from top to bottom, transferring it from the autocratic authority of kings or nobles or chiefs to lower down to traders, entrepreneurs, and finally to farmers and workers wherever they were. The abolition of colonialism and the transfer of power to the common people was another step in this percolation of power to the people.

By and large the people in the newly freed countries got the feeling that they now had power and wanted to exercise it. Expressions of nationalism or settling old disputes were the outcomes of this process. In greater or less measure this was found in most countries. So it is not surprising that the eighties found 180 cases of wars, and 35 million refugees (half in their own country).

At the same time there were changes in the views held by people. Racism was considered wrong. Equal merit had to be given to beliefs and practices. So many communities that remained quiet because they thought they were backward and wrong, now raised their heads and began asserting their views and claiming freedom to practice their ways.

All this creates fiction, leading to conflicts and suffering. It is the avoidance of this suffering that is sought.

When we view the entire situation we can simplify it by getting back to the division of the world into the haves and havenots, or developed and developing. What these two parts seek are slightly different. The developed haves, focus their mind on money and power. The developing havenots also have their mind on money, but as a means to emerge out of poverty and need. They also think of power in the old way of status, caste, and privilege.

At the same time technology is bringing about changes. These changes are helping to make the world a single unit. Through efficient communication, and organised economy, by the growth of multinational business corporations, and other ways, there is a segment of society forming at the top, that seems like a world community of its own. An estimate of the size of this community can be gauged from the figure of 25 million joined to the internet.

A much larger number are viewing the world and not merely their own country, for gaining knowledge, for improving their financial lot, and to modernise their ways of living by absorbing the material benefits available in the world. The important fact is that in various ways this world community is growing fast. They do not manifest any signs of caste, class, religion, or race. They have to be looked upon as a different type of community whose area is the entire globe.

So surveying the world community in toto we find that each community and each country has its own package of problems. The items constituting the package are similar in the undeveloped: hunger, lack of education, need for medicine, feeling of being oppressed, each arising from different circumstances. These are common among developing countries. But the package for each country will vary. The developed world has a different set of problems, vital to them. Military power, economic advantage, stability of government, state security, power over territory. The entire world has another set of problems, deteriorating atmosphere, and contamination of oceans, proliferation of drug use, lack of a shared basic belief system, and the prospect of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. To find an all encompassing solution, we have to find solutions to each of the individual problems. Is that possible? In the ensuring chapters let us examine these issues in greater depth. It should also be observed that there exist smaller groups with their own problems that we have ignored. To complement the picture we should mention smaller groups that have come to notice in recent times, perhaps as a result of greater coverage by the media. Slavery and abuse of women and children, torturous female circumcision, religious sects with harmful practices, and many more remain obscure. The World society is agreed that these are evil and should be wiped out. But some groups resist such wiping out, because they too have been infused with the idea that every one is entitled to their opinion. Such deviations are unacceptable. They are however too small to be taken into the analysis that we are engaged in. The UN and several government and non-government organisations are engaged in eliminating them. This aspect of the world although small, persists in some form at all times, but generally fails to rise to prominence. In summary we can say that all people in the world seek peace and stability to continue their pursuits. These pursuits vary between different sections of the world, the developed, developing, and globalised. Each of these sections are composed of groups that have their own peculiar problems in finding solutions. In turn each of the states have their own priorities. Lastly within the states themselves there are sections that vary from mildly dissatisfied to openly warring communities. In such a situation finding solutions to these problems is an unending undertaking. What we desire is to confine ourselves to the one problem facing states, that of building a nation for themselves. But in that process we have to analyse widely and deeply in order to identify what we need.
