On “Civilization States” vs Nation-States
This essay was originally published on “Brown Pundits”. It has now been adapted into a slightly different form.
For many years (off and on) I have been participating in an online forum called “Brown Pundits”. While the site’s tagline is “Ideas off the Indus”, in practice–as often happens on forums dominated by the Indian diaspora–the commentariat tends to be of a right-wing nature. Their views can loosely be characterized as “soft Hindutva”. I do not intend to cast blame on individuals since it is a fact that India’s political spectrum has moved rightwards since Prime Minister Modi came to power in 2014. However, as a Pakistani-American (albeit a center-left one), there are times when I find it frustrating to argue against their assumptions. One of these default assumptions is that India (or “Bharat”) is a “civilizational state” and not a nation-state.
This essay primarily serves as a rebuttal to a post on BP entitled “Bharat Needs No Validation”. I will focus on two issues– the “civilizational state” vs. nation-state and the use of the term “Akhand Bharat” (and the accompanying map). While some may question why I am putting this on Substack since it is seemingly specific to a particular forum, I believe that it reflects a general attitude among many Indians that India has somehow always been there while Pakistan and Bangladesh are artificial entities. This is obviously a problematic attitude and I am using this opportunity to argue against it.
Civilizational State vs. Nation-State
Google defines “Civilizational state” as one that “defines itself and its identity based on a unique and encompassing civilization, rather than solely on shared ethnicity, language or governance”. Google goes on to note that “ the differing worldviews and values associated with civilizational states could potentially lead to tensions and conflicts with other nations or blocs”. In India’s case, defining itself as a “civilizational state” certainly leads to tensions with Pakistan (and perhaps to a growing extent with Bangladesh).
I believe that this “civilizational state” conception is a belief of the Hindu Right. I agree with the Indian left that the Republic of India is a nation-state that was created on August 15, 1947–exactly at the same moment that Pakistan was created. British India was not a nation-state but a colony. Upon decolonization, parts of the colony went their own way.
Shashi Tharoor– an Indian politician belonging to the Congress party and someone who I would argue is a centrist– argues that the “civilization state” is inherently illiberal. Tharoor writes:
The very concept of a civilization state is profoundly illiberal. It implies that any attempt to introduce “imported” ideas like democracy or human rights must be resisted because they are “foreign” to the civilization in whose name the state is being constructed. The rejection of values (like democracy, civil liberties, minority rights, freedom of the press and so on) that liberalism trumpets as universally desirable is justified on the grounds that a civilization needs political institutions that reflect its own traditions, history and culture. A civilization state is inhospitable territory to religious and ethnic minorities, dissidents and challengers because they are seen as intruders into a civilization to which they do not essentially belong — and which regards what matters to them as alien, and therefore illegitimate.1
A little later in the essay, he goes on:
It is possible to be proud of one’s civilization and honor one’s traditions while striving to ensure that one’s nation upholds the principles and values one deems desirable for oneself and one’s fellow citizens. While do so, the reason I resist the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s attempts to reconstitute India as a civilization state is precisely because such a notion has no place for non-Hindus (some 20% of the country’s population) except as second-class citizens confined to subordinate roles. My idea of an “inclusive India” embraces different languages, religions, regions and ethnicities on an equal basis and emerges from classical liberalism. I can justify it in terms of my civilizational heritage too, but resist the notion of a “civilization state” because its advocates have a narrow and exclusionary idea of what such a state implies.
As Tharoor so eloquently argues, the assumption behind calling India a “civilizational state” is that India belongs to the “Hindu” civilization. This notion is obviously very off-putting for Indian Muslims, Christians and other minority groups. It is not really an issue for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis since we have nation-states of our own. In Pakistan, the general consensus is that our country was created as the homeland of the Muslims of British India. Post the creation of Bangladesh in 1971, this argument also became problematic since the independence of that country (whose population formed the majority of “united” Pakistan) clearly proves that Islam alone was not enough to define national identity. However, while Bangladesh chose to become independent from (West) Pakistan, they didn’t show any desire to merge their country with West Bengal. Thus, one could argue that Bangladeshis see themselves as Bengali Muslims and not simply as Bengalis. The country’s constitution initially declared it to be a secular state but later Islam was introduced as the state religion. Thus, this debate remains a live one in Bangladesh.
“Akhand Bharat”
As a Pakistani, I will note that I find the term “Akhand Bharat” and the accompanying map extremely triggering. While some people claim that “Akhand Bharat” doesn’t imply that India has any territorial claims on the other South Asian states,this is not how this term is commonly understood.
Wikipedia notes that “Akhand Bharat” is “a term for the concept of a unified Greater India. It asserts that modern day Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Tibet are one nation”. It shouldn’t take a very high level of critical thinking to understand why this conception is deeply offensive to all South Asian countries excluding India. The idea that India has a territorial claim on Tibet is also deeply offensive to the People’s Republic of China.
Wikipedia goes on to note that the 2023 unveiling of a mural in India’s Parliament said to depict the Maurya Empire under Ashoka was criticized by many of India’s neighboring countries. Mumtaz Zahra Baloch, spokesperson for Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, criticized it as a “manifestation of a revisionist and expansionist mindset” while Bangladesh’s junior minister for foreign affairs stated “Anger is being expressed from various quarters over the map”. Clearly then, if India’s ruling party uses this concept, it will severely undermine neighborly relations with other South Asian countries. I will also note that the Congress Party does not use this terminology. Perhaps this is because it is an RSS worldview or because Congress understands that it would damage India’s relations with other regional countries.
In conclusion, the conception of India as a “civilization state” is extremely problematic and leads to tensions with other South Asian countries. It is also offputting to India’s own minority populations. It would be far healthier for the entire region if we all respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all three nation-states that once formed part of British India.
Tharoor, Shashi. “Civilization States Are Profoundly Illiberal.” https://www.noemamag.com/civilization-states-are-profoundly-illiberal/
The term civilization State is perhaps nothing but what Benedict Anderson calls nation, and what he distinguishes from nation state.
If that is the case, the current nation state of India encompasses a number of nations/civilizational States, such as Tamil, Telugu, Malayali, Bengali, Oriya, etc.
These nations existed as different political entities for long period, but several of these were also knit together into single multi nation units in the form of short lived empires from time to time, such as the Mauryan, Gupta, Sultanate, Mughal, British etcetera.
While nations have existed for centuries, the concept of nation state is relatively recent, no older than rhe nineteenth century. The principle underlying this is that each nation constitutes, or should constitute, a sovereign State. Nineteenth century nationalism was predicated on this idea, and this led to the break up of multinational empires such as the Habsburg, Austro-Hungarian etc. and the formation of modern nationalism States that we are familiar with today.
This concept of nationalism also underlay the anti imperial movements of the twentieth century. The British however left behind a very chaotic situation at the time of withdrawal from empire in South Asia. First, Burma and Middle Eastern countries attached to the British empire (such as Aden etc) were separated from India in 1937 on the basis of the Simon Commission argument that these were separate nations. But in 1947 the partition of India was not nation based but religion based, because Bengal and Punjab were divided on religious lines, while several different nationalities were included in India because these were primarily seen as Hindu.
Who or what is a Hindu is another conundrum in itself!