Modern notion of nationalism or nation state came to the colonies with the arrival of Western occupation forces which, as is well-known, spiced up by their sense of superiority, were determined to mould the societies they subjugated into their own image. The result, however, was a little more than cheap replicas. Paradoxically, nationalism came handy to indigenous resistance forces. It fulfilled at least two vital functions. Firstly, it helped them to look at their history and reinterpret their past from a new perspective, which made it look less communal and less divisive. Secondly, it created among the subjugated people a sense of unity and subsequently became a political rallying point against their colonial masters.

Thus in the process obscure historical figures came onto the centre stage and heroes were invented whenever there were none. Internal conflicts were for the moment suppressed with a view to face what was rightly conceived as foreign monsters. In a nutshell, colonialism unleashed the forces in the lands they occupied which would not only expel them but would also play an important historical role in shaping the future of these societies free from the talons of foreign oppression.

With the end of colonial era, the so-called nationalist forces themselves at times assumed the role of an oppressor due the historical conditions they faced. Colonial masters, during their stay and at the time of their departure, arbitrarily created states and divided regions to suit their future interests. They unabashedly violated the principles of historical continuity, geographical contiguity, common language and shared culture while partitioning territories and carving out new states out of the existing ones. When the local elites took over, they emphasized national integration and unity which retained its appeal for some time in the euphoria that accompanied the national liberation. But soon the real cracks began to surface in the form of sub-nationalisms reflecting the old and new conflicts which hitherto remained subdued.

The problem was not merely confined to the creation of new states. What it involved in the case of the subcontinent was communally-driven unprecedented mass migration never seen before in its long history. Migrants, voluntary and forced ones, became a source of new conflicts if they did not share the language and culture of the regions they migrated to. Since our part of the world is hugely diverse, fresh power sharing arrangements in the new states created an imbalance between regions and communities that led to strengthening of sub-nationalisms.

Elements advocating the cause of sub-nationalism have three main demands; redistribution of national resources acceptable to all the concerned, acceptance of their ethnic, linguistic and cultural rights and integration of migrants with the old population and adoption of their languages and cultural practices. The migrants, encouraged by the state policies, resist such demands and insist on retaining their historical identity. The paradox is that nationalists/centrists insist that all in the regions under their rule must adopt and own the language and culture they project as national which implicitly and at times explicitly denies the rights of the cultures that constitute the state. Sub-nationalists demand that they must be allowed to have their particular cultural identity but at the same time they insist that migrants in their areas must give up their separate cultural identity through a fast moving process of assimilation; adopting the languages and cultures of the regions.

The claim of supremacy of national culture is as ill-founded and phony as the sub-nationalist claim of linguistic and cultural homogeneity in their regions. Each region within its boundaries has visible diversity like the state that has diverse constituents which form it.

The contradictory attitudes of both nationalists and sub-nationalists come to the fore in the case of their relationship with the expats, our diaspora. The expats who uphold the notion of nationalism by promoting the state language and its cultural practices abroad are patronised and eulogised by the state. The expats who promote their own languages (other than the so-called national) and cultural practices are hailed as heroes and heroines by the sub-nationalists. It shows a glaring contradiction and offers an incontestable display of double standards. Here they demand inclusion and integration while abroad they demand exclusion and separation. The state wants the sub-nationalists to shun their cultural rights and sub-nationalists want the migrants to shun their cultural rights. The state wants the dissidents to integrate exclusively with the state and what it upholds. The dissidents want the migrants –internal and external–to integrate with their exclusive indigenous identity and what it upholds. So we witness strange phenomena. The state honours the expats who write in Urdu language and promote the religion-inspired vision of state culture. The sub-nationalists, on the other hand, praise the expats to the skies who write in the languages of their region and uphold the traditions of their historical culture. Both the state and the sub-nationalists, what is wrong here is right abroad; not becoming part of the mainstream. They want all to be part of the mainstream but the mainstream conceived by the state and the sub-nationalists is not the same. However, they want the expats to maintain their separate identity distinct from the mainstream.

Expat poets, writers, artists and performers suffer from the same malaise. They take great pride in sticking to their old social and cultural habits and flaunt their love for their ancestral homeland in being separate from the mainstreams of the societies they have settled in. They spend money to get their books published, their performances arranged and special functions held in their honour in the country they left for good. Local literati write and sing paeans to whoever lands from abroad with literary and cultural pretensions in the hope that they would be treated the same when they visit them abroad. All of them know the art of give and take. The state, the nationalists and the sub-nationalists continue to push their agendas without ever being bothered by the contradictions inherent in their standpoints. Anyway crusaders for a cause live happily if and when they keep the lid on their critical consciousness. — soofi01@hotmail.com

Published in Dawn, November 6th, 2023