The ‘current’ era of globalization has once again thrown up the debate on the relevance of Nationality struggles. The arguments against nationality movements emerge from two fronts. First, a section of intellectuals, even some progressive intellectuals, tend to argue that globalization of capital is eroding the national boundaries. Thus, for them the ground under the feet of nationality movements, based as they are on territoriality, is being eroded. Second, a section of intellectuals tend to argue that with globalization there has been a general withdrawal of state. These intellectuals seem to equate the withdrawal of state with the extension of civil society, which for them is the harbinger of the future development of universal citizen. (The possibility of such a development is seen in the fantastic explosion of the I-way leading to coinage of new concepts such as the netizens, etc. It is symptomatic that a certain influential writer-activist called herself as a free floating republic.) With the withdrawal of state/the expansion of civil society, the intellectuals tend to believe that agenda of protecting/restoring the dignity of a people, that has been the central rallying call of nationality struggle, can now be achieved by supplanting struggle with negotiation.

If we summarize the arguments of the two groups briefly we may arrive at the following conclusion:

1)  In the era of globalization the nationality movements become unviable since the erosion of national boundaries have reached such an advanced stage that any struggle based on a demand of separate territory is redundant ipso facto.

2)  In the era of globalization withdrawal of state/extension of civil society has created a situation where by the dignity of a people can be protected by negotiation since a weak state will be more amicable to negotiated settlement.

Thus the two views challenge the goal and the forms of nationality struggles on the grounds of their redundancy in the changed situation of globalization.

It is the task of this paper to show that such counterposition of nationality struggle with globalization is not a new phenomenon. Indeed this tendency can be traced back to the second half of 19th century, where Marx and his contemporaries had indulged in an impassioned debate. Second this paper seeks to highlight the theoretical lacuna inherent in the two views briefly enunciated above. It is my contention that the impact of globalization has been studied in a non dialectical and non Marxist way. Dialectics argue that any process is a unity of opposites while historical materialism argues that every development is a combined and uneven development. The above views have failed to notice the contradictory and uneven process of globalization hence the incorrect conclusion while analyzing the nationality movements. The arguments will be developed in two sections. The first section will deal with the historical antecedents of the present debates and the lessons that can be drawn from it. The second section will deal with the theoretical lacuna of the above mentioned arguments.

Historical antecedents of counter position of nationality movements with globalization

The debate on the precise links between globalization and national aspiration is not new to Marxism. The first edition of this debate stated in the second half of the nineteenth century. It is pertinent to point out here that the late nineteenth century was an era of fantastic increase in production leading to remarkable breakthroughs in the form and organization of capitalist production. The internationalization of capitalist production had led to the formation of Workers International. Along with the internationalization of production and labour the era was also marked by the emergence of nation states and with the 1848 revolution, nationalities of the oppressed and dispersed peoples such as that of Italy, Hungary and Germany, were restored. (cf. Engels, Letter to Karl Kautsky, February, 1882.)

Given the formation of the international solidarity of the working people with the aim of supplanting the international order of capitalism with a new socialist international; what was to be the attitude of the revolutionary thinkers and movements towards the desires of oppressed and dispersed nationalities for the restoration of their nationhood? The case in point was the demand of the Polish and the Irish people for national liberation. Kautsky and his followers opposed nationalist manifestations in the masses as diversions that will delay the emergence of socialism at the world scale by breaking the international solidarity of the working people.

Marx and Engels were opposed to such a counter positioning of the aspirations of the oppressed nationalities with internationalism, on four counts.

First, Marx and Engels argued that in a situation where exploitation and oppression of a people reinforces international process of exploitation, national liberation of that oppressed nationality, rather than diverting international movement pushes it forward. Linking the liberation of Ireland with the liberation of the English working class Marx wrote,

If England is the bulwark of landlordism and European capitalism, the only point where one can hit official England really hard is Ireland.

In the first place, Ireland is the bulwark of English landlordism. If it fell in Ireland it would fall in England… On the other hand, by maintaining the power of their landlords in Ireland, the English proletariat makes them invulnerable in England itself.

In the second place, the English bourgeoisie has not only exploited the Irish poverty to keep down the working class in England by forced immigration of poor Irishmen, but it has also divided the proletariat into two hostile camps… This antagonism among the proletarians of England is artificially nourished and supported by the bourgeoisie. It knows that this scission is the true secret of maintaining its power.

….(Therefore) it is a precondition to the emancipation of the English working class to transform the present forced union (i.e., the enslavement of Ireland) into equal and free confederation if possible, into complete separation if need be. (K. Marx Confidential Communication, March 28, 1870.)

Similarly writing on the Polish question, linking the nationalist assertion of the Poles with internationalism, Engels wrote:

…Poland lies in the middle of the Continent and the conservation of her division is precisely the link that has constantly held the Holy Alliance together, and therefore… [It is their] duty to be nationalistic before they become internationalistic… They are most internationalistic when they are genuinely nationalistic. The Poles understood this during all crises and have proved it on all battle fields of the revolution. Deprive them of the prospect of restoring Poland or convince them that the new Poland will soon drop into their lap by herself, and it is all over with their interest in the European revolution. (F. Engels, Letter to Karl Kautsky, February 7, 1882)

Second, Marx and Engels argued that such demands of the oppressed nationalities cannot be rejected simply because of the perceived short term losses to the interest of working class, of the abstract notion of universal socialism, etc. Writing on the Irish Question Marx wrote:

…this is only a penalty which England—and consequently also the English working class—is paying for the great crime she has been committing for many centuries against Ireland. And in the long run it will benefit the English working class itself. (K. Marx, Letter to Ludwig Kugelmann, April 6, 1868) 

Third, these movements cannot be opposed simply because their ideology does not confirm to ones predispositions. Commenting on Irish movement Engels argued that it has to be supported even if it is not socialist:

A purely socialist movement cannot be expected in Ireland for a considerable time. People there want first of all to become peasants owning a plot of land, and after they have achieved that, mortgages will appear on the scene and they will be ruined once more. But this should not prevent us from seeking to help them to get rid of their landlords, that is, to pass from semi-feudal conditions to capitalist conditions. (Engels, Interview in New Yorker Volkszeitung, September 20, 1888)

Fourth, inspite of being less developed ideologically and politically than the workers international the movements of the oppressed nationalities perform an objectively revolutionary role, as they counter international colonial exploitation, even when the leadership may be controlled by reactionary classes. Marx wrote:

…since 1846 the economic content and therefore also the political aim of English domination in Ireland have entered into an entirely new phase, and that, precisely because of this, Fenianism is characterized by a socialistic tendency (in a negative sense, directed against the appropriation of the soil) and by being a lower orders movement. (K. Marx, Letter to Engels, November 30, 1867)

It is pertinent to point out here that Marx arrived at this estimation of the movement even when he was highly critical of the competence and the class character of the Fenian leadership. Engels wrote:

As regards the Fenians you are quite right. The beastliness of the English must not make us forget that the leaders of this sect are mostly asses and partly exploiters… (F. Engels, Letter to Marx, November 29, 1867)

Thus, for Marx and Engels inspite of the incompetent and reactionary social background of the Fenian leadership the Fenian movement was objectively revolutionary since it opposed the English attempt to establish and consolidate cattle farms in Ireland by dispossessing the Irish.

It follows from the above that from the very inception of internationalization of capital attempts have been made to reject the national aspirations of the oppressed nationality as being disruptive to the working class solidarity. The fundamental flaw lies in the fact that Kautsky and his supporters aspired for a formal unity of the working class rather than a unity of struggles against different forms of exploitation. It is to the credit of Marx and Engels that they pointed out that surplus appropriation under capitalism acquires specific forms under colonialism. These specific forms ultimately reinforce each other thereby strengthening imperialism. That is why Marx had argued that landlordism in Ireland reinforced landlordism in England even as English army was the chief bulwark of landlordism in Ireland. Thus the socialist revolution can not be fought only in the advanced sectors of production or against imperialism at the world scale. For international socialist struggle to succeed it was necessary to first weaken imperialism by cutting off additional sources of surplus in the areas of the oppressed nationalities.

Thus for Marx and Engels there was an organic link between the international solidarity of the working class and the specific struggles of the oppressed nationalities. Furthermore, Marx and Engels argued that the aspirations of the oppressed nationality cannot be met by abdicating struggle. Engels, in the case of the Polish movement, rightly pointed out, “Deprive them of the prospect of restoring Poland or convince them that the new Poland will soon drop into their lap by herself, and it is all over with their interest in the European revolution.”

Theoretical Lacuna in the current views

On the basis of the above section it is established that for the Marxists there is an organic link between the working class movements and the movements of the oppressed nationalities. It is also established that the only path for the fulfilment of the aspirations of the oppressed nationalities lies in struggle. Has the situation altered so radically that it warrants an alteration of these positions?

The advocates of the two views briefly mentioned in the introductory section advocate such revision. As mentioned before, the adherents of the view base their arguments on the changed economic and political situation.

In support of their view the advocates of the views give the examples of the creation of the European Union, with a unified currency and also a Euro parliament. This for them is the testimony of the increasing redundancy of territorial nations. It is also pointed out that with the roll back of the state large areas of economy; politics and social sphere that were hitherto controlled by the state have passed to civil society both collective and individual. This roll back is equated to the erosion of states' power or at least the liberalization of state’s economic and political outlook. The newly enhanced power of NGOs is pointed to as the symptom of states' opening up. The collapse of the iron curtain, the apartheid regime and creation of Palestine and East Timor are quoted as the most eloquent examples of either the liberalization of state power or its erosion, thus making it amicable to negotiations with elements of civil society whether national or transnational.

All these are objective facts and hence cannot be disputed. However if conclusions about the impact of globalization on the nature and character of nations and the nature and character of states are to be drawn based on such a selection of facts the conclusions are bound to be incorrect. While it is true that the creation of European Union and the softening of the boundaries of its member countries is a result of globalization, yet trying to project it as the universal consequence of globalization will be incorrect. It is equally true that the resurgence nationalism in the Eastern Europe is also connected to the same process. Several commentators, including Prabhat Patnaik, have indicated the machinations of first world finance, especially of Germany in the dismemberment of Yugoslavia. Unfortunately rather than attempting to analyse the structural processes behind the resurgence of nationalism Prabhat and other commentators are content to rely on conspiracy theory.

Other than the resurgence of nationalism in Eastern Europe there has been a mushrooming of the assertions of the oppressed nationalities all over the world. In Fiji the aspirations of the ethnic Fijians and Fijians of Indian origins flared up. New Zealand and Australia witnessed the rumblings of the indigenous peoples. Scores of Nationality movements in Burma are refusing to die down inspite of years of military repression. In India the north-eastern states have seen the explosion of nationality movements. Manipur has witnessed steady multiplication of the organizations championing the cause of different communities. Similarly in Assam communities otherwise not known to be involved in nationality movement, such as the Bengalis, the Muslims and the Santhals, now have their own organizations. States such as Arunachal and Meghalaya that have never witnessed nationality movements now have several. In Bangladesh the indigenous communities such as the Chakmas, Hajongs, etc. are vocally articulating their demands. In Bhutan the ethnic Nepalese are spearheading the democracy movement. In Pakistan the Mohajirs, the Kashmiris and the Pushtoons have their own movements.

Further west in Afghanistan the different tribal confederations are confounding all calculations to establish an acceptable regime. The Kurdish question is still simmering in the Arabian Peninsula and Turkey. The resurgence of nationalism in Eastern Europe has already been mentioned. Even the ‘first world’ is not immune to the demands. Spain continues to grapple with the Basque and the Catalan movement. England is still grappling with the Irish movement, the aspirations of the Welsh and the Scottish people have not only continued to exist but have consolidated in recent years. Across the Atlantic in Canada the right to self determination of the French speaking people of Quebec was defeated by the narrowest of margins. Mexico is facing the strident assertion of the Chiapas. One could go on…

Even a cursory glance of these facts leads to the indispensable conclusion that just as the softening of national boundaries in Europe has been the result of Globalization, so have been the continuation and consolidation of the old and the emergence of several new nationality movements. Globalization, therefore, does not seem to have same impact universally but distinct impacts in the first world and the peripheries.

Similarly, simultaneous existence of contradictory processes is witnessed on the impact of the process of Globalization on the nature of state. While it is true that under the impact of Globalization the state has had to roll back from economy—the so-called economic liberalization. However, equating this with either the erosion of state of power or with opening up of state is mistaken. Just as Globalization has accompanied roll back of the state, thus initiating economic liberalization, in the political sphere the process is accompanied with a sharp right/fascist turn of politics. In nations across the world the stridence of right wing political processes is too shrill to escape attention. What is more, states across the world are becoming militaristic. Draconian measures in the name of curbing terrorism have become all too frequent. Asylum laws have been made tougher and defence expenditure has increased many folds.

It is not as if the proponents of the views under criticism are not aware of these contradictory processes but they either dismiss them as accidents or mere lags of a fast disappearing era. Even when they do analyze them, these processes are dealt with as isolated events resulting from conspiracies of individuals or organizations. The underlying structural causes are never explored. Thus the nationalist ferment in the Eastern Europe is viewed as conspiracies of either the fanatic Muslims or ex-communist dictators. The multiplication of insurgency in the north-eastern regions is either seen as a Christian conspiracy or the handiwork of ISI or even the result of military and material aid provided by National Socialist Council of Nagaland. However such episodic explanations can not explain the international resurgence of the movements of the nationalities.

Perhaps the answer to this peculiar juxta-position of contradictory consequences of Globalization can be understood through the Leninist concept of combined and uneven development of processes. In his book Materialism and Empiro-Criticism, a book which is central to the development of Mao Zedong’s ideas in ‘On Contradiction’, Lenin clearly states that nothing develops evenly. Under  Capitalism process of appropriation of surplus value lead to the uneven (unequal) development of various classes, sectors of production and even regions. The last under the category, uneven development of regions, gets really accentuated under the aegis of imperialism and colonialism. Refinement and enhancement of the surplus appropriation exacerbates the unevenness of development. Thus development of Globalization would entail greater unevenness of development— meaning greater oppression of nationalities. Hence the increase in nationality struggles in the current era of imperialism.

It follows that exploitation under Globalization also entails exploitation and oppression of nationalities. Nationality struggles therefore are a necessary and integral part of the struggle against Globalization. Furthermore since Globalization has not only resulted in the roll back of state but also its militarization and an overall rightward shift of polity it implies that the possibility of putting an end to the oppression of the nationalities through negotiation is slim.