The Chimera of Non Western Nationalism and Resistance

Nationalism-the identification by a group of people with a nation (or patrie)- has been a potent and a powerful force in modern history. This reductive definition of nationalism does not capture its essence and its varieties. Defining nationalism means walking onto a definitional minefield and morass. It , however, need not detain us here given that the focus or unit of analysis here is non western nationalism and the resistance it generated against both imperialism and colonialism.(Both even though bearing a resemblance are distinct categories). The nationalist fervor that gripped the erstwhile colonized led to a spate of decolonization and the formation of new states or nation states.

The protagonists of the nationalist drama were paradoxically individuals-in most cases talented and gifted- who were implicated, in one way or the other, in empire. They were, in most cases, beneficiaries of the imperial system. They usually got educated in the imperial metropoles, were steeped in western political theory and methodology and exposed to the societies of the west. Paradoxically, it was these intellectuals or intellectual turned political leaders that offered a critique of the natives’ (colonized peoples) ‘false consciousness’ and catalyzed resistance against various imperiums. It was either racism that they encountered in the metropoles or the humiliations experienced in their own societies that probably made them rebel against empire. While they did, by and large, succeed in changing the perceptions of most of their fellow ‘national’s towards empire, it was not their efforts that made imperial exit possible from their nations/societies. Structural and internal conditions of empires and not non western nationalism were perhaps the main catalysts in the dissolution of empire.

While these questions and issues for historians to debate and discuss, what is pertinent is whether non western nationalism has really been successful? Did it lead to successful and vibrant nation states? Was the ‘rediscovery’ by the native of his/her self and society real? Or was it an illusion- a conjurer’s trick? Decades after decolonization, what judgment can be passed on non western nationalism and the states these created?

The premises of non western nationalism were probably psychic wounds and scars generated by racism and other negative experiences by the nationalism elite of the non western world. In most cases, it could said then this nationalism was vindictive and retributive. (This does not exonerate the harsh and dark side of imperialism). Given that this nationalism was negative and reactionary, it could perhaps never have been a predicate for building successful and vibrant societies. The rediscovery of the native self and society was an illusion and a trick performed by these disaffected intellectuals and leaders upon their peoples.  There really was no self or a past to discover.( Nehru agonized over this in his thick tome,  The Discovery of India’ and succeeded brilliantly in deceiving himself). The non west, except for the Islamic and perhaps Chinese civilization was never a force in world politics and history. The revival of the West or the birth of the West had subsumed all and whatever remnants of civilization existed were overwhelmed by the superior west. The non west could not even muster a rear guard action against the western onslaught-save in some egregious instances of no real significance.

While non western nationalism raised and created problems for empire, these were never insuperable. In the final analysis, the nationalist resistance amounted to pin pricks which could easily be contained and snuffed by imperial authorities. It was, to repeat the internal and structural conditions of the imperial metropoles that ultimately led to the abdication of empire(s) and decolonization. Even Gandhi’s ‘non violent’ struggle and resistance would have come to naught had not Britain’s position and condition within been precarious.

 If non western nationalism had been effective and ‘authentic’, this should have led to the formation and development of effective, efficient and salubrious states or nation states in the non western world. But this is not the case. Be it Africa, the Middle East , Latin America, South Asia or what passes for the Third World, the story of the post colonial state has been dismal.  Poverty , violence(political and social), political and economic uncertainty , torpor and lassitude are the defining features of these states and societies. The condition of some of these have given rise to a peculiar state called the ‘failed state’. So ,essentially,  non western nationalism and the resistance accruing from this has been a farce and a chimera. Does this condemn these states and societies to these abysmal conditions forever?

No. However, non western societies and states need a redeeming principle or philosophy. This will not come from within.( What came from within was crass and crude populism . coup d’etats and violence). It has to come from without. The source for this is and can only be the west against which ironically non western intellectuals and leaders defined themselves against. It is the ideas of the west that have proven to be superior, effective and efficient. Be it economic growth, political and economic organization, social organization and culture, the predicate for/of all these are western ideas. So we come full circle here. Non western nationalism and resistance then was an aberrant interlude and in the final analysis farcical.  A review needs to be carried out now. Non western peoples have been made to suffer for no fault of theirs. The ideas animating this exploitation have been nationalism, authenticity and resistance.  It is about time that pride is swallowed and those ideas embraced that have withstood the test of time. This much is owed to the suffering masses of the non western world. Let the Edward Said’s of the world be paid their due homage and respect and let their ideas be buried as well.