Nationalism - the temple, church, mosque of modern times

By Afreeha Jawad

As religion receded into insignificance and science came on centre stage from the 16th century onwards, reason as opposed to blind faith saw man into a whole gamut of socio/cultural/economic/political changes revamping as it were the entire layout into much vibrancy yet not without its accompanying hiccups.

At the height of church power in the middle ages social stratification was not without its glaring presence. Inequality then was ever so widespread as it is now. None raised a finger against it for fear of upsetting the deities. The church was supreme. Questioning was heresy. Hence a lid on whatever was curious on man's part.

Nevertheless, the age of reasoning was inevitable. It had to come and it did. The gigantic strides in science leading to inventions, discoveries, world exploration followed by large scale amassing of wealth coming off newly conquered colonies also saw the 18th century's onset of nationalism. Nations fought many bloody wars in the quest for resources. The country as a unit forged ahead. However, danger lay in what came off as patriotism which smacked of majoritarianism. Ethnic minorities that formed a common front against colonising forces later were disintegrated as majority communities were facilitated into majority rule much to minority frustration. If colonial powers were into rigid nationalism following their quest for riches, the basis for nationalism in colonial states was to preserve political power in ethnic majority hands in the course of which unequal resource distribution followed.

So there was this global dual play of inter-national and intra national nationalistic tendencies. In both observably is the thirst for power and control heavily tainted with hegemonic leanings.

Inter-national conflict projected each country's populace as a collective in building up national power. That was the feature of global nationalistic tendencies at macro level.

However at micro level within colonized states to reiterate was a kind of patriotism where each country's majority populace presented nationalism and patriotism to be exclusively their preserve sidelining all other ethnic groups the very groups that came on as a national collective to oust alien forces. For instance the Ceylon National Congress brought under its umbrella diverse ethnic groups that fought colonial rule.

Every question, problem or issue that was seen from a religious perspective during times of the power centred church of the middle ages is today re-emerging in improvised form. Under contemporary nation state set up, the tendency to view questions through majority centred religion and the political nucleus of unitary state characterised by territorial integrity and sovereignty express a nationalism of a chauvinistic nature - the exclusive right supposedly of and favourable only to the majority community.

Non-secular state

Be it Muslim Pakistan, Hindu India or whatever is Buddhist - the temple kovil, mosque and church are emerging into prominence alongside the pandering of their respective clergy. The politicization of religion and merging of state and church, temple, mosque whatever sees the state into a non-secular state triggering off minority unrest. Incidentally historian Dr. Nimal Ranjith's radio broadcast of time and spatial man is of relevance here.

Spatial he refers to is geographical space and time - the period of man's historical existence. Certainly, it is the course of time and geographical territorial placement and man's involvement in both that combine in making what is history - the repetition of which in improvised version is nothing new.

Not surprising, then, serving the state has come to be service to God. Utterances such as, "I have done my duty to God," "to work is to serve God," are only too frequent. However, upholding the concept of state in Buddhist environs is the protection of a majoritarian state which in local surroundings is called a Sinhala Buddhist state. "Mey Budunge Desayai" is boldly displayed in buses when the Buddha himself has proclaimed our own bodies not being our possession.

If the Buddha said his own body was not his and saw the futility of existence how come we bestow a country's ownership on him?

In Muslim countries this nationalistic wave is put forth as 'The Islamic Republic' - making one - wonder what God, Islam and Buddhism has got to do with the state - a social construct. Thus the contemporary state is akin to the church that was in the middle ages - the existence of both is not to be questioned. While the church's functioning was autocratic, the state that followed later turned freedom into a facade.

Social democracies need commendation for their attempt in making the best out of the worst. As a result today in such countries the inequity gap has lessened and a social security system exists where its citizenry are relatively better off than elsewhere.

Blind faith/rational thinking

If one ever wondered why the crude finish in an autocratic church layout was absent in more sophisticated democratic environs, significantly the shift from blind faith to more scientific and rational thinking from the 17th century onwards is very apparent. The church's stringent measures when men challenged it are no different to what is implemented today under state environs - seemingly a difference arising out of ignorance in one and learning in the other - a crook becoming a refined crook type of situation.

Democracy that could move rulers into public good today is often misused resulting in autocracy - at least science and reasoning has facilitated man to equip himself in learning how it could be done devoid of what existed in church centred crude middle ages in the absence of reasoning.

The misuse of reasoning is what modernism is all about though in modernity man came off in his best-the great inventions, discoveries, explorations literary genius and what not so very characteristic of the 17th and 18th centuries.

State centred majoritarian rule is a far cry from democracy's sublime objectives which is a misuse of scientific reasoning and logical thinking so very symbolic of man from the 17th century onwards. When socio/political/economic polarization is intensified the chances for equity is mitigated.

Hegemony is not part of democratic ideals. Ethnic, political and economic marginalisation needs to be arrested to narrow whatever widening differences. Certainly a way out are the world's social democracies - perfect role model indeed.

Even unequal resource distribution is justified by what is divine. For instance expressions such as May Apey Karumayai - this is our fate or in Muslim delivery 'This is our naseeb and in Christian social construct 'god's will' have been circulating around for generations.

Resource ownership arising out of avarice, and aggrandisement and what goes as divine will or some other socially constructed expression when such ownership gives rise to poverty are two incompatibilities.

As a result, the polarisation of religion in arriving at economic and political inadequacies is widespread. Religion then is seen as the best way of compelling people into accepting their deprived state.

Thus the twin elements of nationalism and religion are fostered into upholding majoritarianism and deprivation.

[email protected]