UNIT 29 ETHNIC RESURGENCE AND ‘IDENTITY’

WARS
Structure

29.1 Introduction
29.2 What is Ethnicity
29.3 Modernisation and Ethnic Upsurge and Conflict
29.4 Irrational Boundaries: Challenges to State System
29.5 Interventionist Role of the Modern State and Loss of Traditional Autonomy
29.5.1 Homogenisation and Assimilationist Approach of the Modern State

29.5.2 External Environment

29.6 Identity Wars/Conflicts

29.6.1 Causes of Identity Wars

29.7 Summary
29.8. Exercises

29.1 INTRODUCTION
The recorded human history is the history of struggle for power and resources. For purposes
of waging this struggle, prerequisites like group formations and establishment of political set-up
became an integral part. The bases of political order kept changing, keeping in view place and
time. Force, fraud, superstition, inheritance, divine right, conquest etc., provided the bases. The
breakdown of the hereditary monarchical system created the crisis of legitimacy whereby race,
colour, tribe, caste, religion and finally ideology provided the raison d’etre for collective political
existence and its legitimacy. Democratic as well as authoritarian systems were alike in their
efforts for mobilising people behind the regime on some common basis and this constituted the
crucial factor in terms of stability and the legitimacy of the system.

In the post-imperial and post-colonial phase, ideology of nationalism was articulated to legitimise
the pre-eminence of the state as against competing loyalties. Most of the modern wars had been
the result of the evolution of one kind of political organisation, the empire, into another form,
the nation-state. This process had gone on for well over 300 years and it has not run its full
course. But during this phase of the evolution of the nation-state, the emphasis was on territorial
nation-state in preference to ethno-nationalism. The ideology of “territorial nationalism” was
articulated to integrate ethnically diverse people. In this process, the post-imperialist and post-
colonial territorial boundaries were the focus of legitimisation. However, the ideology of nationalism
failed to integrate ethnically diverse people and legitimacy of the territorial nation-state came to
be increasingly questioned. Instead, the concept of ethnically homogeneous nation-state gained
wider acceptance and lies at the root of intra-national and international conflicts today.

29.2 WHAT IS ETHNICITY?

The world ethnic has been derived from the Latin word ‘ethniko’ which means common identity.

9
 Ethnicity is a sense of common identity consisting of the subjective, symbolic or emblematic use
by a group of people in order to differentiate themselves from other groups. It is a fluid concept-
contextual, situational and relational. It is the expression or assertion of cultures, voices and
nationalities. It is concerned with the idea of distinctiveness. The term may be defined as an
awareness of a common identity among the people/members of a particular social group.
According to Anthony D. Smith, ethnicity is based on the following criteria-a distinct group
name in order to be recognised as a distinct community by both group members and outsiders;
a shared belief by group members in the myth of common ancestry and descent; the presence
of historical memories among group members (as interpreted and diffused over generations,
often verbally); a distinctive shared culture; association with a specific territory or ‘homeland’;
and a sense of common solidarity; and common religion, if there, can be cementing force.

29.2.1 Decline of Ideology of Nationalism and Ethnic Resurgence

The decline of the ideology of territorial nationalism, wherein diverse people were integrated
through a common ideology, created a sort of vacuity wherein ethnicity is fast emerging as the
most solid basis for political formation and its sustenance. Race, colour, caste, religion etc. no
doubt differentiate and bind people together in separate socio-political formations but these seem
to have lost to ethnicity because the former unites human beings superficially, to a limited extent
and for specific purposes, the ethnicity binds them several-fold over, with characteristic entirety
and wholeness.

29.2.2 Nature and Dimensions of Ethnic Resurgence

The upsurge in ethno-nationalism in recent decades the world over, producing conflict and
violence within the states and across the borders, is a fact which mankind can ignore at the cost
of its own peril. The existing international system is composed of 190 odd territorial “sovereign
states” and about 20 non-sovereign political entities, whereas there are 862 major and more than
three thousand minor ethnic groups. There is hardly any ethnic group-major or minor-which is
immune to some level of irredentism in its relations with other ethnic groups or the state which
to they belong. Of the 190 odd “territorial sovereign states,” only 15 are ethnically homogeneous.
Of these half are involved in ethnic conflict across the border involving co-ethnic spill-over into
the neighbouring state/s. According to analysts, less than 4 per cent of the world’s population
lives in states whose boundaries correspond to the ethnic boundaries. Conversely speaking,
more than 96 per cent of the world’s population living in political conditions which do not
conform to their natural choice or self-determination; as such are haunted by irredentism at
various levels and in various forms and manifestations. Significantly, no particular classification
of state has proven immune to this phenomenon. Afflicted countries are old (the United Kingdom)
as well as new (Bangladesh), large (Indonesia), as well as small (Fiji), rich (Canada) as well
as poor (Pakistan), authoritarian (Sudan), as well as democratic (Belgium), Marxist-Leninist
(China), as well as militantly anti-Marxist (Turkey), predominantly Buddhist (Burma), Christian
(Spain), Moslem (Iran), Hindu (India), and Judaic (Israel).

The magnitude of the problem can be gauged from the fact that since the end of the Second
World War till date, many people lost their lives in intra-state and inter-state conflicts and
violence and more than 75 per cent of them in ethnic conflict and violence. Of the ongoing major
conflicts in the world, over 75 per cent are on ethnic lines. Ethnic conflict and violence, thus,
is not only the most serious but also the most complex problem confronting mankind. Ethnicity
is at the centre of politics-national as well as international-and is a potent source of challenge
to the cohesion of states and of international tension. Ethnic diversity has affected the life in
many ways. According to one expert: “Ethnic conflict strains the bonds that sustain civility and

10
is often at the root of violence that results in looting, death, homelessness, and the flight of large
numbers of people.”

29.3 MODERNISATION AND ETHNIC UPSURGE AND

CONFLICT
The problems of ethnic upsurge, conflict and violence on an unprecedented scale in so short a
period since the Second World War is, perhaps, partly due to the accelerated process of
modernisation which mankind has undergone since then. The ethnic violence is only an expression
of disapproval and is an armed recourse to change the state of things as desirable from the point
of view of the perpetrator of violence. It is some deep-rooted malaise which creates conditions
of ethnic upsurge and conflict. It is imperative to understand the malaise in its depth only so
as to grasp its manifestations properly.

In the operational sense, modernisation means the attainment of relatively higher levels of the
variables, such as education, per capita income, urbanisation, political participation, industrial
employment and media participation. As the process of modernisation unfolds itself it creates
conditions of ethnic social mobilisation-both territorial as well as non-territorial. However, this
contention is in direct opposition to sociological theories of modernisation and the Marxist
theories. There was a kind of consensus amongst the sociological theorists of modernisation and
the Marxists that ethnic competition belongs to the pre-modern era; in so far as it persists, it
is an irrational form of behaviour or a form of false consciousness.

The political theorists of nation-building also view ethnic ties as transitory in nature and argued
that forces of modernisation and social mobilisation would lead to assimilation of distinct identities
in the process of nation-building. Even liberal thinking in political science hinges upon the
argument that as mankind moved from a primitive, tribal stage of social organisation to a
complex industrial and post-industrial structure, the primordial ties of religion, language, ethnicity
and race would gradually but inexorably lose their hold and disappear. Scholars like Anthony D.
Smith gave a different line of reasoning that the modern scientific state will lead to frequent
ethnic revivals. The modern means of audio-visual mass media and communications have
created parochial political consciousness on ethnic lines which is far ahead of forces of trade,
commerce and industry. Modernisation and social mobilisation have not led to a transfer to
primary allegiance from the ethnic group to the state. Can we go beyond this to posit an inverse
correlation between modernisation and the level of ethnic dissonance within multi-ethnic states
? The available evidence about the pattern of ethnic dissonance in the world, at various levels
of modernisation, is indicative of the fact that material increases in social communication and
mobilisation tend to increase cultural awareness and to exacerbate inter-ethnic conflict. According
to Walter S. Jones, the available empirical evidence has borne out that “ethnic consciousness
is definitely in the ascendancy as a political force, and that state borders, as presently delimited,
is being increasingly challenged by this trend. And what is of greater significance, multi-ethnic
states at all levels of modernity have been afflicted. Particularly instructive in this regard is the
large proportion of states within the technologically and economically advanced region of Western
Europe that have recently been troubled by ethnic conflict”.

The agents of modernisation forge ahead mechanically by multiplication, whereas human thinking
and the primordial loyalties change, if at all they do, at a snail’s pace. In terms of technological
and material growth and development, in a short span of less than half a century since the
Second World War, mankind has achieved many a times more than it could achieve during the
entire period of human existence prior to the War. However, on the socio-political and psychological

11
 levels there is hardly any evidence of any change or transformation. Paul-Henry Spaak thus
observed the dichotomy created by the technological achievements and socio-political
backwardness: “Truly, our imagination is not in step with our era.”

This dichotomy in terms of material achievements and relative socio-political primordialism

produces and reinforces fundamentalist forces hinging on primordial ties. The religious
fundamentalism, ethnic revivalism and consequent terrorism are the outcome of this disequilibrium
of what we have and what we are. Modernisation produces alienation which the ethnic groups
are ill-prepared to withstand. The challenge of modernisation to socio-cultural and political ties,
values, orientations, institutions and hierarchical social order is often viewed or perceived by the
elite of these groups as threats to identity.

Social mobilisation and technological revolution in transport and communications rather than
mitigating socio-cultural peculiarities, creating a hybrid culture and a composite society, have
generated increased particularist cultural awareness and identity consciousness. The technological
revolution in communication permits previously isolated ethnic groups to become more visible,
and in certain cases interact across national boundaries. Moreover, the intra-ethnic as well as
inter-ethnic communications play a major role in the creation of ethnic consciousness.
Modernisation creates identity consciousness in an ethnic group which the ethnic elite mobilise
for political purposes against the states. Simultaneously, within the ethnic groups, the forces of
modernisation create convulsions whereby the traditional elite find its authority increasingly
challenged by new socio-economic forces which are thrown up by the process of modernisation.
In this intra-ethnic competition for dominance, the traditional forces are pitted against the new
ones. Consequently, the competition or rivalry for leadership within the group leads to “one-up-
manship”. Threat perception being the guiding principle, the existing and the added ethnic
grievances are articulated normally around extremist demands, new strategies for their realisation
are forged and invariably, in most of the cases, separatist movements are launched.

Modernisation and social mobilisation reinforce group identity on ethnic lines and produce
awareness for differentiation from other ethnic groups. The process of modernisation has also
produced political and economic competition on an unprecedented scale. This competition is not
only essentially the product of conditions of scarcity but also of plenty which the modernisation
has created. The ethnic differentiations lead to intensification of competition among groups,
making the ascriptive basis of ethnicity a functional and effective vehicle for advancing group
interests. The intensive and extensive competition created by modernisation generate social
frustration and ire leading to social conflict and violence.

In short, modernisation sharpens differentiations, articulates identity consciousness, produces

intra-ethnic and inter-ethnic competition and degenerates into violent conflicts.

29.4 IRRATIONAL BOUNDARIES: CHALLENGE TO STATE

SYSTEM
The problem of irrationality of political boundaries is at the root of many ethnic conflicts
whereby ethnic groups divided between two or more states strive for either ethnic unity or
independence from the parent state or both. Here the difference between politicisation of
ethnicity should be distinguished from ethnic nationalism, though the former may lead to the
latter where a historical claim to a particular territory can be established. By the same logic all
ethnic movements do not aspire for complete independence or statehood. Mobilisation of groups
on ethnic lines is done to secure a better deal within the system whereas territorial ethnicity

12
seeks a position of partial or complete dominance in the territory concerned.

The present ethnic phenomenon is due to the nature of state boundaries all over the world. The
state boundaries defy any rational or logical basis of delimitation and delineation. These are the
products of the arbitrary policies of the imperialists and colonialists as well as various patterns
of migration. The colonialists either inherited these irrational boundaries or followed the imperialistic
approach to drawing boundary lines as dividing lines and in the process divided ethnic groups,
tribes and even the clans. At times these ethnic groups fell prey to two or more competing
colonialists or imperialists which divided them depending upon their power and/or convenience.
Ethnic ties or geopolitical factors were completely ignored. The division of Kurds amongst Iraq,
Iran, Turkey, Armenia and Syria, and Baluchs between Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and
Pushtuns between Afghanistan and Pakistan are cases in point.

During the colonial period these divided ethnic groups constituting a minority in the colonial set-
up were handy to the colonialists against the dominant group. Generally, the colonial authorities
ensured a better deal for these minority groups in recruitment to services and military and
pampered them for their usefulness against national liberation movements of the predominant
ethnic group in the colony concerned.

The imperialists as well as colonialists allowed and in some cases facilitated the tribal socio-
cultural autonomy to flourish so long as it did not interfere with their authority. The traditional
economic and socio-cultural ties and interaction across the border with their ethnic kins continued
unchecked or unrestricted. The lack of participative political set up and dormant political
consciousness did not create problems for the colonialists. The primordial socio-economic and
political structures of the ethnic communities remained intact during the colonial period. In the
absence of modern means of transportation and prevailing economic backwardness, the ethnic
consciousness for identity remained dormant and primordial in its manifestation and did not pose
a challenge to colonial sovereignty. Nevertheless, the demise of imperialism and colonialism
ensured by national liberation movements created a consciousness for self-rule or self-determination
which eventually percolated down to ethnic communities in the post-colonial states.

Unlike in the past when human factors were rarely taken into account for drawing the boundaries
of empires or colonial possessions, in the modern age the human consciousness of a sense of
identity cannot be ignored in any territorial distribution. In their zeal for nation-building the
Western-educated ruling elite in the post-colonial states charted a course of national assimilation
which has boomeranged in the sense that it created a host of sub-national or ethnic uprisings
all over the developing world. After the First World War, US president Woodrow Wilson’s
principles wherein he asserted that “people and provinces are not to be bartered away” and that
the right to national self-determination was an inalienable right of the people living in a particular
area, the contemporary statesmen and media chided and scorned him for his idealistic enunciations,
has facilitated this phenomenon.

29.5 INTERVENTIONIST ROLE OF THE MODERN STATE

AND LOSS OF TRADITIONAL AUTONOMY
The penetrative role of the modern state has come to be increasingly resented and even
opposed by tribal, ethnic and religious communities. They perceived this tendency as centralisation
of power by the state and articulated this perception as a threat to their separate identity. This
is not to suggest that the imperial or colonial periods were marked by the complete absence of
central penetration and/or control.

13
 Firstly, during the imperial or colonial periods, as and when the state attempted to regulate or
harmonise ethnic affairs it was not due to the extension of the sphere of state activity but due
to some political compulsions of a particular regime, whereas by contrast the interventionist
nature of the modern state makes it imperative to impart socio-economic justice. Secondly, in
the past, whenever and wherever the state pursued penetrative policies the affected ethnic
group or community resisted the penetration which often led to bloodshed and genocide perpetrated
by the state. Permanent and complete submission of the resisting ethnic group remained a
surreal reality, use of excessive amount of violence, notwithstanding. Russification drives of
Russian Czars in Central Asia and Muslim and Mughal rulers’ atrocities against Hindus and
Sikhs in India are historical realities substantiating the above position. The opposition to state
penetration invariably remained smouldering beneath the façade of normalcy, periodically resurging.
Irredentism remained festering for generations, waiting for the opportune moment to strike back.

29.5.1 Homogenisation and Assimilationist Approach of the Modern

State
The cumulative impact of the interventionist or penetrative activities of the modern state and
its assimiliationist policies in the garb of nation-building produced ethnic opposition to the modern
state strengthened the hardliners within the regimes which pursued assimilationist policies more
vigorously and at times resorted to armed crackdown which further reinforced the position of
hawks within the ethnic community. The challenge to ethnic identity and autonomy mounted and
became so colossal that the sub-national communities are now compelled by the situation to act
as if they were states in an international environment. Elite relations among the ethnic groups
partake of diplomacy. While interacting among themselves and even with the state on the
political plank, the ethnic leaders reflect local autonomy, which, in the words of an expert is
“analogous to the relations among small states in a multipolar international system….They
therefore form alliances that might remind the diplomatic historian of Renaissance Italy, and they
deal with one another on the basis of sovereign equality”.

In its relations to or dealings with the parent state, the ethnic groups’ behaviour typified or is
analogous to a small state towards the major state in the international system. These groups
refer to the parent state in ‘us-they’ dichotomous terms. In their references to the parent state
the relationship is at times reminiscent of colonial relationship. The ethnic communities accuse
the parent state of injustice, discrimination and exploitation. The suitable data are marshalled to
substantiate the charges. Demands-social, cultural, linguistic, religious, economic, territorial and
political-are raised and inability or failure of the state, which is often the case, leads to further
charges of exploitation, discrimination, suppression and even genocide.

Ethnic people are mobilised against the state and movements are launched, provincial boundaries
are challenged and demands are vociferously raised for unification with the ethnic kins living
in other provinces or states. Other ethnic migration to its areas is resented, opposed and at times
attacked. Protectionism in terms of property ownership rights, jobs and land ownership is sought,
for the ethnic community to the total exclusion of “outsiders”. The reactions of the state-
whether these be the restoration of law and order or checkmating the growing drift-are decried
as if these were of the occupation force. The state is accused of violation of human rights,
barbarity and even genocide. Rules of international behaviour are sought to be invoked in ethnic
group vs state conflict. International bodies dealing particularly with minorities, human rights’
protection and other humanitarian agencies are approached against violations by the state.
Forces inimical to the state in the international set up are contacted for support. Efforts are
made through ethnic migrants abroad to internationalise the issue to evoke sympathy. Significantly,

14
these actions and activities of the ethnic groups are increasingly gaining legitimacy. This trend
has brought about a qualitative change in the territorial state-dominated international system. If
this trend remains unchecked, i.e. ethnic homogeneity becomes the raison d’etre of state
system, the world is likely to be composed of more than three thousand ethnically homogeneous
mini-states. The disintegration of Pakistan, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and USSR on ethnic
lines are strong pointers to the emerging international political order.

In their zeal for nation-building, the regimes in the Third World pursue policies which generate
homogenising pressures, which cause resentment and are viewed with suspicion by the ethnic
protagonists. The ruling elite in the Third World is not to be blamed entirely for these homogenising
pressures. The modern state by itself is caught up in this vicious circle of cross-cutting interaction
and inter-dependence. The inter-dependent global system has created a kind of global political
and economic inter-dependence and integration. The state sub-system as part of this global
system becomes a catalyst for the percolation of these integrative processes downward in its
ethnic sub-systems.

The ethnic aspirations and the consequent uprisings have not properly been managed by the
post-colonial states. The tendency among these newly independent states is informed of a threat
perception in the context of ethnic minorities and their aspirations to the unity and territorial
integrity and even to the independence of the state. Such a perception has paid rich dividends
to the ruling elite of reinforcing its eroding legitimacy. No serious effort has been made to
accommodate or manage the ethnic aspirations. Instead rulers in the Third World countries
followed assimilationist policies and often resorted to military solutions of the ethnic imbroglio.
Consequently, the festering irredentism of the ethnic groups assumed the form of violent conflict
and terrorism with demands ranging from autonomy to complete independence.

Another aspect of this problem, which has too often been ignored, relates to the intra-ethnic
power struggle which paradoxically is linked to ethnic vs state conflict. The deprivation of power
within the state leads to frustration and anger among the minority ethnic groups. The failure of
the traditional leadership of the ethnic group to secure a satisfactory solution over a time leads
to loss of patience and anger in the ethnic community. Consequently, the younger generation
within the ethnic community, which is relatively more educated and imbued with political
consciousness and is not dogmatically loyal to the traditional leadership, instead seeks to challenge
and if possible to change it. In this intra-ethnic group struggle for supremacy the new leadership
raises extreme demands and advocates violent means to achieve the same. This fascinates the
increasingly frustrated rank and file and ignites their imagination of a future set-up. The repressive
machinery of the state, in the process of countering it, inadvertently offers justification of the
extreme demands raised and the means adopted for their realisation. In the process the new
leadership emerges as the dominant force in the ethnic movement within the state.

29.5.2 External Involvement

The conditions of domestic ethnic conflict tend to involve outside parties overtly or covertly,
imparting it international dimensions. These essentially intra-national problems assume international
character because ethnic considerations have increasingly influenced the decision-making in
foreign policy through the ages but in modern times ethnicity has emerged as the major plank
on which foreign policies are planned, shaped and executed. In the event of an ethnic group
divided between two or more states, the nature of ethnic linkages across the border depends
upon a host of ethnic considerations. If an ethnic group is predominant in the state A and a
peripheral minority in state B, A is tempted to keep B as an imbecile entity. B as a weak entity
by supporting openly or clandestinely the agitated ethnic group and the union of the ethnic

15
 minority, if effected, will strengthen the position of the predominant ethnic group in the state A
domestically and vis-à-vis state B externally. For example, Pushtoons constitute 13.14 per cent
of the population in Pakistan, while they are the predominant ethnic group constituting around
50 per cent of population (including the refugees in Pakistan) in neighbouring Afghanistan.
Afghanistan’s sympathy and support for Pushtoons’ uprisings in Pakistan stems from the fact
that this provides them a soft border with Pakistan, a relatively powerful neighbour. As and
when conditions warrant the unity of Pushtoons across the Durand Line would reinforce and
further consolidate the position of Pushtoons within Afghanistan’s political set up. However, in
the absence of any ethnic ties with the ethnic group in conflict in a neighbouring state the nature
of external involvement will depend upon the nature of the bilateral relations between the
affected state and the neighbouring state, their relative power position and a host of other
considerations.

In the event of an ethnic group divided between two or more states and constituting majority
in none of them (as in the case of Kurds) the tendency on the part of other states is to support
the ethnic group against the beleaguered state or the beleaguered state against the ethnic group
or a position of neutrality depending upon the nature of their bilateral relations, their relative
power position and convenience. Iran and the Soviet Union have supported the Kurds and the
Iraq government alternately. Significantly, in 1988, Iraq dropped poisonous gas on the Kurdish
town of Halabja causing death to thousands of defenceless civilians and Iraq’s president Saddam
Hussain justified it. This act of genocide using internationally banned poisonous gas did not raise
any flutter anywhere. Perhaps, the USSR, Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria where the Kurds
constitute a minority-are in a discreet alliance, for, at times, they have also resorted to suppression
of restive Kurd populations in their respective states.

Without active external support-both moral and material-the ethnic discontent remains latent and
may not assume actual conflict proportions. The discontented ethnic minority without an active
external support may take to constitutional means of struggle. However, the spurt in ethnic
conflict all over the world in recent years owes its existence and sustenance to external
involvement and support. The use of a large number of small and medium weapons by the
ethnic groups, the meeting of huge recurring financial requirements for sustenance, and mass-
media exposure to their point of view cannot be explained except with reference to the
involvement of external powers.

In modernday politics, ethnic calculations have become a major input in foreign policy planning.
This is not to suggest that this was not in earlier periods of history but the nature and intensity
of ethnic considerations in foreign policy-making, particularly in the Third World countries, have
assumed new proportions. It is not essentially the conditions of ethnic conflict which influence
the foreign policy formulations. The very existence of ethnic groups in a multi-ethnic state is
a permanent influencing factor in foreign policy formulation of not only concerned state but also
the neighbouring states as well. For example, the Soviet foreign policy towards Afghanistan,
Iran and Turkey was never oblivious of ethnic linkages between Soviet Central Asian ethnic
groups spilling across the border into these states.

In view of the traditional instruments of foreign policy having been rendered redundant or
prohibitive, ethnic issues have emerged as the new instruments of foreign policy. Providing
support-overt or covert-to ethnic groups in another state or to the state against the ethnic group,
or a status of neutrality in ethnic vs state conflict are manifestations of involvement in the ethnic
conflict. In an ethnic conflict situation the group-not essentially in a numerical majority in the
state-having privileged access to state power will formulate its foreign policy to quarantine the
ethnic conflict from any outside involvement. However, the ethnic group having no access to

16
state power may evolve the strategy to establish international contacts to gain support. It is
these efforts of the rival parties “to evoke and/or regulate outside involvement” which lead to
the internationalisation of domestic ethnic issues.

Viewed against this background the ethnic phenomena cannot be wished away on assimilationist
and Marxist presumptions. It has come to stay as global phenomena confronting the existing
national and international systems. Forces of modernisation, rather than mitigating ethnic ties
have exacerbated them. The intensity and propensity of all round competition, which is the end-
product of modernisation and socio-cultural and political consciousness as its natural corollary,
have proved catalytic in organising human beings on ethnic lines. Marxian observation that
“workers have no fatherland” means that destitution and misery of the 19 th Century European
industrial worker would create economic consciousness rather than a parochial one. But the
post-industrial society and electronic mass-media, revolution in transport and communication
have reinforced parochial consciousness. Of course, the consciousness and competition created
ethnic identities in preference to racial, linguistic, religious or ideological identities. The reason
being that ethnicity binds human beings together with several overlapping bonds which are more
natural, spontaneous and enduring, whereas the other identities are based on one or two variables
which are relatively based on expediency and are transient in nature. Ethnic ties are based on
a lifetime’s training as member of an ethnic group and which have shaped his moral and mental
disposition.

Modernisation facilitated the advent of modern welfare state thereby eroding the internal autonomy
of ethnic, religious and tribal groups and led to authoritative centralisation. It is against this
interventionist role of the modern state that ethnic groups offered organised and sometimes even
violent resistance and opposition. While the developed countries managed the ethnic resistance
or opposition through resilience and /or accommodation, the newly independent post-colonial
Third World states failed to grasp the reality and rise to the occasion. Instead these states
viewed this ethnic resistance and opposition as a threat to unity and territorial integrity of the
territorial nation-state, thereupon these states adopted assimiliationist policies for nation-building
and even did not hesitate to military solutions. The confrontation between the state and the
ethnic group enforced the legitimacy of the ruling elite vis-à-vis the predominant ethnic group
and the ethnic elite vis-à-vis the besieged ethnic community or sub-national group.

Irrational boundaries and innumerable mutual disputes between the Third World states facilitated
the external links and support to the sub-national groups, and/or to the parent state, thus
internationalising the otherwise internal conflict. Deprived of the often used instruments of
foreign policy, the states have resorted to warfare through other means, i.e. support to ethnic
groups against the state or to the state against the sub-national group. Consequently, ethnic
considerations have assumed a major role in foreign policy pursuits. The whole national as well
as international set up is confronted with ethnic resurgence of an unprecedented magnitude. The
nature, dimensions and magnitude of ethnic claims, ethnic uprisings and ethnic conflicts are clear
pointers to the emerging pattern that the existing nation-states and the international set up
composed of nation-states as units is in the melting pot. What will emerge out of it will largely
depend upon the sagacity and statesmanship of the leadership-both the ethnic as well as of the
nation-states.

29.6 IDENTITY WARS/CONFLICTS

No doubt, the problem of identity related conflicts have been haunting the mankind since times
immemorial but in contemporary era these have become more pervasive and most violent.

17
 According to one reckoning of the ongoing conflicts the world over more than 75 per cent are
related to identity. The dynamics and dimensions of these identity wars are so serious that they
pose a threat to the fabric of social cohesion and territorial unity and integrity of most of the
modern nation-states. Death toll in these identity conflicts is astounding and millions of people
have become refugees. Most of these identity related conflicts are based on threat to ethnic
identity.

Identity can be defined as an abiding sense of selfhood, the core of which makes life predictable
to an individual. To have no ability to anticipate events is essentially to experience terror. Identity
is conceived of as more than a psychological sense of self; it encompasses a sense that one
is safe in the world physically, psychologically, socially and even spiritually. Events which
threaten to invalidate the core sense of identity will elicit defensive responses aimed at avoiding
psychic and/or physical annihilation. Identity is postulated to operate in this way not only in
relation to interpersonal conflict but also in conflict between groups.

As is evident, identification is an inherent and unconscious behavioural imperative in all individuals.

Individuals actively seek to identify in order to achieve psychological security, and they actively
seek to maintain, protect and bolster identity in order to maintain and enhance this psychological
security, which is a sine qua non of personality, stability and emotional well-being.

29.6.1 Causes of Identity Wars

Any one or the combination of two or more than two of the following factors leads to identity
wars.

1. Fear of loss of Identity:

This is primarily due to the arbitrary national territorial formation and the minority ethnic groups
in the new political formation where they fear the loss of their ethnic identity. Nagas, Mizos,
Assamese in India and Baluch and Pushtoons in Pakistan have had uprisings leading to armed
conflict when the new state tried to achieve integration in the national context. Ethnic groups
around the world fear the loss of separate and distinct identity in the given political order.

2. Fear of Assimilation:

Minority ethnic groups fear assimilation on the part of the majority. Hence they try to maintain
artificial territorial boundary based on their ethnicity. Sikh demand for Punjabi Suba and Sikh
homeland in India and demand for Sindhu desh in Pakistan aim at protecting their identity
through territorial demarcation of boundary between “us” and “they” i.e. the dominant majority.
A kind of territorial enclave is the objective where its distinct identity could be preserved.

3. Fear of Marginalisation:

This is mainly as a result of domination of an outside group over indigenous people. An out
group is one which is not native to the area/region in question but became part of it either due
to voluntary immigration or state-sponsored colonisation. In such a scenario, it has often been
observed that initially the migratory process was unassisted and did not involve any calculated
strategy of dislodging the indigenous group from power and position. Colonisation, on the contrary,
was a political programme with strong ethnic considerations aiming at neutralisation of the
position of the indigenous people and reducing it to a minority in its own territory as in the case
of Maoris in New Zealand, Aborigines in Australia and Red Indians in North and South

18
America. This is done through an ethnic oriented state-sponsored policy of demographic
engineering.

4. Sense of Relative Deprivation and Discrimination:

Minority ethnic groups generally remain deprived and discriminated as a result of denial of
minority rights and gross under-representation in national life and governmental institutions.
Under representations of minorities in armed forces, civil services, police administration, judicial
and legislative departments is widespread. This leads to discrimination as in the case of Tamils
in Sri Lanka, Hindus in Bangladesh, Mohajirs and Baluch in Pakistan.

3. Sense of Powerlessness:

Hegemonic majoritarianism pursued by the ruling elite creates a sense of powerlessness among
the minorities which in turn leads to minoritarianism. This majoritarianism and minoritiarianism
feed on each other. Significantly this majoritarian-minoritarian syndrome is more prevalent in
democratic polities where the exclusive usurpation of power by the majority community is
sought to be justified in the democratic logic. This majoritarianism can be of two categories.
One, in which a national majority is pitted against a regional majority which is otherwise a
national minority. Secondly, the regional majority is up against the national majority. Sikhs and
Kashmiris in India, Tamils in Sri Lanka, Pushtoons, Sindhi and Baluch in Pakistan are the classic
examples of this majority-minority syndrome.

The increase in number and intensity of ethnic conflicts or identity wars in recent times is a
clear indicator of the state of affairs in the foreseeable future. According to one reckoning there
were 37 major armed conflicts in the world in 1991 out of which 25 were internal conflicts most
of which were on ethnic lines as identity wars. turned secessionism. Through the power they
seek to gain, they argue that their distinct identity can be preserved or promoted.

29.7 SUMMARY
This unit focuses on the question of ethnic identity and reasons for the resurgence of ethnic
conflict. Ethnicity comes from the Latin word ‘ethniko’ meaning common identity and refers to
an awareness of common identity among the members of a particular social group in terms of
a distinctive shared culture, common ancestry and historical memories, association with a specific
territory, a sense of common solidarity and common religion. It had been argued earlier that
ethnic ties are transitory in nature and that along with modernisation and social mobilisation,
distinct identities would be assimilated into the nation. Instead, there has been an upsurge in
ethno-nationalism in recent decades producing conflict and violence within the states and across
the borders. Of the ongoing major conflicts in the world, over 75 per cent are on ethnic lines.
The available evidence about the pattern of ethnic dissonance in the world, at various levels of
modernisation, is indicative of the fact that material increases in social communication and
mobilisation tend to increase cultural awareness and to exacerbate inter-ethnic conflict. These
conflicts are to an extent the products of the arbitrary policies of the colonialists who followed
an irrational logic in drawing boundaries which divided ethnic groups, tribes and clans. The
primordial socio-economic and political structures of the ethnic communities remained intact
during the colonial period in the absence of modern means of transportation and prevailing
economic backwardness. Thus the penetrative role of the modern state has come to be increasingly
resented and even opposed by tribal, ethnic and religious communities and they are gaining
legitimacy.

19
 The ethnic aspirations and the consequent uprisings have not properly been managed by the
post-colonial states. Third World countries followed assimilationist policies and often resorted to
military solutions. Deprivation of power within the state leads to frustration and anger among
the minority ethnic groups. Apart from that, fear of the loss of identity, fear of assimilation, fear
of marginalisation, sense of deprivation, sense of powerlessness are all factors which can lead
to an identity war. They also tend to involve outside parties overtly or covertly, imparting it
international dimensions. Without active external support the ethnic discontent may not assume
actual conflictual proportions. In fact, ethnic calculations have become a major input in foreign
policy planning. Ethnic groups in conflict seek autonomy through which they feel their distinct
identity can be preserved.

29.8 EXERCISES
1. What do you understand by the term ‘ethnicity’? Do you think it is becoming an important
issue in recent years?

2. Give reasons for the rise in ethnic violence in a relatively short span of time after the Second
World War.

3. In what way was intervention by colonial states different from that of modern states?

4. Why has the ethnic problem assumed international dimensions?

5. Explain the concept of identity. Why do identity wars take place?

20