(This is the latest edition of the Political Line newsletter curated by Varghese K. George. The Political Line newsletter is India’s political landscape explained every week. You can subscribe here to get the newsletter in your inbox.)
Countries want to be nationalist and globalist at the same time; and nationalists want to exclusively own countries and be global at the same time. Let me explain this curious trend against the backdrop of the ongoing tussle between India and Canada over the murder of a person whom India had declared a terrorist.
Sikh nationalists, who want a separate state of Khalistan to be carved out of India, are active across several countries: Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. There is little within the Sikh-majority Indian State of Punjab that is supportive of the call for a separate nation. Khalistan nationalism and the violence associated with it are not actually happening in the territory that they hope to create as their own nation, but it is a scattered global enterprise. Such nationalist mobilisation without a territory, and spread across different parts of the world, is not unknown in history. What is striking is the global spread of nationalisms of all hues — Indian, Hindu, Islamic, Sikh, Jewish, Chinese. They all mobilise across boundaries of nation states.
In the last decade of the last century, the dominant liberal theory had it that the world was turning into one big village; national sovereignty was a thing of the past, and individualism had triumphed. Global alliances of deracinated elites, who did not belong to any race or religion across countries, were to drive the global economy and seek solutions for the problems of humanity. Leaders of countries openly called for shrinking national sovereignty, but then came the sudden rollback of globalisation, starting with the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S., and the return of national sovereignty and controlled economies with a vengeance.
But defining the national interest of sovereign countries that now have multi-ethnic elite groups that are part of parallel, transnational networks poses a problem. For instance, for all the talk of decoupling, the elite groups in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and Australia have interests in China. The Chinese diaspora is part of the internal dynamics of these countries. During World War II, the U.S. rounded up around 1.2 lakh people of Japanese descent; the Chinese were then against Japan. Now, the U.S. is trying to manage its Chinese-origin population in the wake of increasing tensions between the two countries. Canada can cry for sovereignty, but there is no longer domestic consensus in its society regarding what constitutes national interest for it. There are groups that have friendly ties with India, and those that support Khalistan; there are interests that support ties with China and confrontation with it. It is really instructive that the political storm in the U.K., which started with the clamour for national sovereignty, has now reached the point where it has a non-white Prime Minister, with Indian origins.
The nationalist that wants to create exclusive nation states, or capture existing nation states exclusively for themselves, wants their countries to be strong, unbending, and force other countries to bend. And curiously enough, the nationalist is not staying within the homeland, but spreading across the world. Paradoxical as it sounds, nationalism has become a global enterprise.
There is no national politics that is without a global outreach. Mr. Modi the nationalist is going around the world; so is his opponent, Rahul Gandhi. The Opposition in Bangladesh is canvassing global support to unseat the incumbent government. The U.S. wants a particular kind of regime in Ukraine, Russia, and Italy; Russia wants a particular kind of regime in Ukraine and the United States. Israel and China want a particular kind of regime in the U.S. The list can go on.
Every country wants to be nationalist and globalist at the same time; every country wants to ring-fence its sovereignty and autonomy on the one hand, and champion universal goals and principles on the other. No wonder this shows up as opportunism and hypocrisy.
Meanwhile, Republican candidate for the U.S. presidency Vivek Ramaswamy has turned the spotlight on one of the mechanisms of recruiting new U.S. nationals. He has called the H-1B visa programme “indentured servitude”, and wants to replace it with meritocratic admission if he wins the race to the White House in 2024. Now, in many other western countries, new residents are recruited through merit-based evaluation. Regardless of how they are selected, their journey of residence in a new country is a long one. What the process usually creates is a workforce without full citizenship rights.
The obituary for nationalism was premature; so was the one for globalism.
Federalism Tract: Notes on Indian Diversity
Ripples in Punjab
The India-Canada stand-off is triggering friction within India as much as it is in Canada. The Shiromani Akali Dal, which claims to represent the rights of the Sikh community, has been cautious in its reactions. While recalling the history of patriotism of the Sikh community, and its role in the struggle against British imperialism, the party denounced attempts to vilify members of the community as terrorists.
Free movement? No
Manipur Chief Minister N. Biren Singh is seeking discontinuation of the Free Movement Regime that allows tribes living along the 1,643-km border between India and Myanmar in the four States of Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh to travel up to 16 km inside the other country without a visa.
Examining quota extensions
A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud has decided to examine if clockwork extensions granted to reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative Assemblies are constitutionally valid.
The cut-off date for citizenship
A Constitution Bench of the SC will hear petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Under Section 6A, foreigners who had entered Assam before January 1, 1966, and been “ordinarily resident” in the State, would have all the rights and obligations of Indian citizens. Those who had entered the State between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971 would have the same rights and obligations except that they would not be able to vote for 10 years.
