Resurgence of Nationalism

Preface and Acknowledgement

This book is the outcome of Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR-NER),Shillong sponsored National Seminar on the theme Resurgence of Nationalism: Citizenship, Identity and Belongingorganized byMizoram Political Science Association (MIPSA) and Department of Political Science, Government Aizawl College during 17–18 October 2019 at GovernmentAizawl College.

There has been renewed interest in this particular theme over the past few years not only in India but across the world because of the changing political landscape and global migration problems in particular. In the context of mass migration and global refugee crisis with Brexit and the increasing strength of anti-establishment political movements in Europe, US and various parts of the world, we are witnessing not only the upsurge of nationalism and right-wing populist movements; but at the same time newforms of violent polarization of the political discourse which are threatening one of the fundamental aspects of democracy: its capacity to deliberate through moderate contrasts and to manage conflicts, reducing the risk of violent radicalization and de-legitimization of competing political views. Thinkers like Ernest Gellner, Eric Hobsbawm, Anthony D. Smith, and Benedict Anderson among many others, have made important contributions to the theories of nationalism which could possibly be understood mainly in terms of primordialist, ethno-symbolist and modernist perspectives.

With the existence of multiple conceptions of the idea of nation and nationalism, there arise an urgency to critically reflect upon the practical impact of these concepts and categories in the lived-reality of people around the globe. For example, the imagination of nation as a homogeneous cultural, religious and linguistic entity limits our capacity to think a nation in terms of conglomeration of people with various socio-cultural, religious and ethnic backgrounds. This mode of thinking is somehow the outcome of ethnic or racial purity claims made by different communities which at the same time bears no reasonable scientific explanation. The attempt to impose a singular historical narrative based on empty glorification of ancient past is another classic example which needs to be considered carefully in academics as well as in the process of state policy-making.In order to have a deeper understanding of these complex phenomena in the 21st Century, one needs to seriously re-consider important concepts such as identity and belonging vis-à-vis the idea of nation and nationalism keeping in mind various new challenges as well as possibilities.

The editors would like to offer sincere gratitude to Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR-NER), Shillong for kindly supporting the Seminar and to all the contributors for their valuable inputs. However, the views expressed by the authors are purely of their own and the editors do not owe responsibility for the views expressed in the chapters.

Editors

CONTENTS

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Dr. Roluahpuia is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the Department of Humanities &Social Sciences, IIT- Roorkee.

Dr.Laruatkima is the Dean of Research at Academy of Integrated Christian Studies (AICS) Tanhril, Aizawl. He is the current Editor of AICS Journal.

Rev Dr. B. Lalnunzira teaches theology at Aizawl Theological College, Durtlang as an Associate Professor.

P. Lalpekhlui is currently pursuing her doctoral research at TISS–Guwahati Campus.

LalmuanaGuite is a Ph.D Scholar at the Department of Political Science, Mizoram University.

KC LalmalsawmzauvaPh.D. teaches Geography at the Department of Geography & Resource Management at Mizoram University.

DrRamdinmawii teaches English Literature at St. Xavier’s College, Lengpui (Aizawl).

DrLalrinnunga Hmar is an Assistant Professor of History at Government Degree College, Kanchanpur(Tripura).

Lalmuansanga teaches Sociology at the Mizoram Christian College (MCC), Aizawl

Lalhming Sangi is currently pursuing her PhD from the Department of Political Science, Mizoram University.

Negotiating Sovereignties: Examining The Case Of Mizo National Movement

Roluahpuia

Introduction

In the year 2014, all eyes were on Scotland when it was going for a referendum that will decide its political future¹. The button ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ was enough dissolve and break 307 years long union with Britain². What makes it more attractive was the non-violent character by which the entire process was undertaken³. Such democratic procedure of self-determination is unthinkable in many other nations when movement for self-determination receive severe suppression. However, the fear was running high on the possible impact of the referendum on other nations having self-determination aspirations. Many countries, irrespective of democratic or authoritarian, communist or non-communist have within them ethnic groups who continue to aspire for a separate state.

Before delving into the main argument of the paper, it is interesting to look at the Scotland experience both for historical and political reasons. The Act of 1707 that binds Scotland⁴ with Britain was a voluntary one involving the consent of the both the parties to form a union. An important part of such voluntary union is the sharing of sovereignty. Although much has changed after now with regard to the Act, yet, both sides have been able to negotiate sovereignty to the extent of allowing referendum and curtailing too much intervention by Britain in particular.

In today’s world, the sovereignty of contemporary nation-states are defined by exercise of power and authority within a delimited territory. Borders define both the extent and limit of nation-state sovereignty. Any external intervention is considered to an infringement on the sovereignty of the nation-state. The modern notion of state sovereignty therefore is deeply entrenched with territory. The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) lay down this principle which is now considered to be the cornerstone of modern-nation state. One also recalls here the French Revolution which was considered to give the modern definition of sovereignty under the Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen which underlies that ‘the source of all sovereignty resided essentially in nations’.Sovereignty is now considered to be the essential attribute of all existing nation-states.

The situation turns out to be rather complex in a multi-national country like India⁵ with many ethnic communities who consider themselves as sovereign. Also, the political integration of the country are also deeply questioned as they are known to be largely either ‘involuntary’ or carried out under ‘coercion’. Both voluntary and consent were absent in most cases and national integration in India was carried out under much hostilities. The problem become more grievous in situation where ethnic groups wanted to remain independent and exercise their right to self-determination.

In light of this background, the paper attempt to highlight the issue of self-determination in the case of North East India⁶ by taking the Mizo national movement. Following its establishment in 1962, the Mizo National Front (MNF) put ‘self-determination’ as its central objective (Zamawia,2007). It wages an armed struggle from 1966 leading to a repeated armed confrontation between the Mizo National Army (MNA)⁷ and the Government of India (GoI) security forces. The MNF runs an alternative government known as Mizoram Sawrkar (Government of Mizoram) until it gave up its armed struggle in 1986 with the signing of Mizo Accord. The attempt of the paper is to highlight the process by the sovereignty of India as a nation-state is contested and the mechanism by which compromises are made leading to a ‘negotiation of sovereignty’.

From Home Rule to Self-Rule

The British India Empire which ruled over the Indian sub-continent for more than 2 centuries was coming close to an end in 1947⁸. The national movement grew stronger with the ever growing resentment against colonial rule. The establishment of Indian National Congress (INC) fundamentally alters the political landscape and in no time emerged as the sole representative of the anti-colonial movement. Indian national movement gradually gathers momentum after the emergence of INC. It takes up the task of freeing India from the yoke of colonial rule.

The idea of ‘Home Rule’ was championed against colonial rule. Proponents of the Home Rule movement were against the foreign rule and demanded self-rule. ‘Swaraj’ is the ultimate goal and the prime mover of the national movement. The Indian masses under the new found leader like Gandhi, Patel and many others rise up in revolt against foreign rule. The national movement reached its zenith after the entry of Gandhi in the scene of Indian national movement. Gandhi undoubtedly has elevated the national movement to a mass movement breaking the boundaries of caste, religion and sex.

The long colonial rule has convinced the people that the British here are only to extract and exploit. The general agreement on nationalist writings cutting across ideological lines has agreed that it was colonialism which gave the birth to the idea of India as a nation⁹. Indian nationalism therefore emerges in the historical context to confront the colonizer and invoke a spirit that would unite the masses against colonial rule. The overthrow of the British was therefore the essential objective of the national movement.

National movement against the British promotes solidarity, sense of belonging and common destiny.It cultivates in the mind of the people the feeling of nationhood and national belonging. The struggle against the British was fundamental in uniting the people towards a single goal that is ‘independence’. The national movement was a movement to end the oppression of India and salvage it from external rule. The anti-colonial movement intensified making it impossible for the British to hold on power in India. By the post-Second World War, it has become inevitable for the British to ‘Quit India’. An overthrow of the colonial power is the outcome of the long-drawn national struggle.

There is no doubt that the common struggle against the British rule by the multiple nationalities has led to the birth of the new nation-state.  In the case of North East India, the penetration of the Indian national consciousness was limited except in the case of Assam. Anti-colonial movements of the same kind which were seen in the rest of the country were not visible particularly in the hills/tribal belts of North East India. Rather than a complete revolt, a more pacified political movement grew which demand the non-integration of their territories within Indian Union or Pakistan. In short, they contest the handover of their territories into the newly independent state and prefer to retain their own sovereignty.

Ethnic groups in