Chapter #2 State

Introduction to the Modern State and Colonialism

Modern state

The modern state is a concept that refers to a type of political organization that emerged in Europe and spread to other
parts of the world. The modern state has some distinctive features, such as:

 It has a defined territory and population, and claims sovereignty over them.
 It has a centralized government that exercises authority and control over the territory and population, and maintains a
monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.
 It has a legal and administrative system that regulates the social, economic, and cultural activities within its boundaries.
 It has a national identity and culture that distinguishes it from other states.

Colonialism

The practice by which a powerful country directly controls less powerful countries and uses their resources to increase its
own power and wealth.

Colonialism has existed since ancient times, but it reached its peak in the modern period, when European and Japanese
empires expanded their influence and power over most of the world. Colonialism has had significant impacts on the
colonized regions and peoples, such as cultural, political, social, and economic changes, as well as resistance and
independence movements.

Historical Context of Colonialism

The early Assyrian empires and the Roman Empires of early antiquity period (484 BC – 250 AD) can be considered the
precursors to the practice of colonialism when both the empires expanded their border with the view to assert cultural
domination and exploitation of resources.

Modern colonialism began with the age of exploration during the early 15th century when explorers like Christopher
Columbus and Francisco Pizzaro made voyages to the American continent. Soon many European explorers from Britain,
France, Spain, Portugal and Netherlands would have their own colonies in the Americas with the British dominating
North America and the Spanish and the Portuguese holding the Southern half of the Americas.

By the late 19th century, the Industrial revolution would see Britain and France take over many countries in the Middle-
East, South and Southeast Asia, whose resources would be exploited by the colonial powers well into the 20th century. It
was after the end of World War II in 1945 that the erstwhile colonies gained independence due to multiple factors, chief
among them being local independence movements (The Indian Freedom struggle and Independence Movements in
Vietnam and Indonesia are notable examples) and the colonial powers themselves being economically weakened due to
the devastation caused by the Second World War.

Global political solidarity projects such as the Non-Aligned Movement were instrumental in the decolonisation efforts of
former colonies along with the United Nations setting up a Special Committee on Decolonisation in 1962, to encourage
this process. The last colony to gain independence was the British colony of Southern Rhodesia, which became the new
nation of Zimbabwe on 18th April 1980

Colonialism and Its Impact on State Formation.

Colonialism and its impact on state formation is a complex and contested topic that has been studied by various scholars
and disciplines. Colonialism can be defined as the practice or policy of one group of people or nation controlling,
directing, or imposing taxes or tribute on other people or areas, often by establishing colonies and generally with the aim
of economic dominance. State formation, on the other hand, can be understood as the long-term processes that led to the
genesis of modern political domination in the form of the territorial sovereign state.

One of the main debates in the literature is whether colonialism was a catalyst or a hindrance for state formation in the
colonized regions. Some argue that colonialism either constructed new states or radically transformed precolonial states in
Africa and Asia, introducing modern state institutions, such as bureaucracy, law, and education, that facilitated the
development and integration of these regions into the global system. Others contend that colonialism disrupted and
distorted the indigenous forms of political organization and social order, creating artificial boundaries, ethnic divisions,
and economic dependency that undermined the legitimacy and capacity of the postcolonial states.

Another debate is how colonialism affected the types and trajectories of state formation in different world regions. Some
suggest that colonialism produced different models of statehood, such as the settler colonialism, the exploitation
colonialism, the surrogate colonialism, and the internal colonialism, that reflected the varying interests and strategies of
the colonizers and the colonized. Others propose that colonialism generated similar patterns of state formation, such as the
neo patrimonialism, the hybridity, and the informality, that resulted from the interaction and adaptation of the colonial and
the local elements.
These debates show that colonialism and state formation are interrelated and dynamic phenomena that cannot be reduced
to simple or linear explanations. Colonialism and state formation have shaped and been shaped by the historical, political,
economic, and cultural contexts of each region and period. Therefore, to understand the impact of colonialism on state
formation, one has to consider the diversity and complexity of the colonial and the postcolonial experiences.

Colonialism and the Construction of Nationhood

Colonialism and the construction of nationhood is a topic that explores how colonialism influenced the formation and
development of national identities, cultures, and movements in the colonized and the colonizing regions. Colonialism can
be understood as the practice or policy of one group of people or nation controlling, directing, or imposing taxes or tribute
on other people or areas, often by establishing colonies and generally with the aim of economic dominance. Nationhood
and nationalism, on the other hand, can be defined as the sense of belonging and loyalty to a nation, which is an imagined
community that shares a common history, culture, language, and territory.

There are different perspectives and debates on how colonialism and nationhood are related. Some scholars argue that
colonialism created or transformed nations, either by introducing modern state institutions, such as bureaucracy, law, and
education, that facilitated the development and integration of the colonized regions into the global system, or by
disrupting and distorting the indigenous forms of political organization and social order, creating artificial boundaries,
ethnic divisions, and economic dependency that undermined the legitimacy and capacity of the postcolonial states.
Other scholars suggest that colonialism produced different models of nationhood, such as the settler colonialism, the
exploitation colonialism, the surrogate colonialism, and the internal colonialism, that reflected the varying interests and
strategies of the colonizers and the colonized. Still other scholars propose that colonialism generated similar patterns of
nationhood, such as the neopatrimonialism, the hybridity, and the informality, that resulted from the interaction and
adaptation of the colonial and the local elements.
These perspectives show that colonialism and nationhood are interrelated and dynamic phenomena that cannot be reduced
to simple or linear explanations. Colonialism and nationhood have shaped and been shaped by the historical, political,
economic, and cultural contexts of each region and period. Therefore, to understand the impact of colonialism on the
construction of nationhood, one has to consider the diversity and complexity of the colonial and the postcolonial
experiences.
 Nationhood in the Colonial Context (Identity, Ethnicity, and Nationalism)

Nationhood in the colonial context is a complex and contested topic that involves the interplay of identity, ethnicity, and
nationalism. Here are some of the main points and sources that I found on this subject:

 Nationhood is often defined as a sense of belonging and loyalty to a political community that shares a common history,
culture, and territory However, nationhood is not a natural or fixed phenomenon, but rather a social and historical
construction that can change over time and across contexts.
 Colonialism is the process of establishing and maintaining political, economic, and cultural domination over a foreign
territory and its people. Colonialism can have profound impacts on the identities, ethnicities, and nationalisms of both the
colonizers and the colonized.

Identity

Identity is the way that individuals and groups define themselves and are defined by others in relation to various aspects
of their social and personal lives, such as ethnicity, religion, gender, class, etc. Identity can be influenced by internal
factors, such as self-perception and agency, as well as external factors, such as recognition and representation by others.

Ethnicity

Ethnicity is a form of identity that is based on a shared sense of ancestry, culture, language, or religion. Ethnicity can be a
source of solidarity and pride, as well as a basis for discrimination and conflict. Ethnicity can also be manipulated and
politicized by various actors for different purposes, such as colonialism, nationalism, or globalization.

Nationalism

Nationalism is a political ideology and movement that seeks to create, maintain, or enhance a nation-state that represents
the interests and aspirations of a particular nation. Nationalism can be civic or ethnic, depending on whether the nation is
defined by citizenship or ethnicity. Nationalism can also be inclusive or exclusive, depending on whether the nation is
open or closed to diversity and pluralism.

Anti-Colonial Movements and Their Role in Shaping Nations

Anti-colonial movements are political and social movements that oppose the domination and exploitation of a foreign
power over a native territory and its people. Anti-colonial movements have played a significant role in shaping the nations
and regions that emerged from colonial rule, as they have influenced the formation of national identities, cultures, and
ideologies, as well as the development of political and economic systems, institutions, and relations.
Some of the examples of anti-colonial movements and their role in shaping nations are:

The Indian independence movement:

A series of campaigns and struggles against British colonialism from the late 19th century to the mid-20th century. The
movement involved various political, religious, and social groups, such as the Indian National Congress, the Muslim
League, the Hindu Mahasabha, the Sikh Akali Dal, the Dalit movement, the Communist Party of India, and the Quit India
Movement. The movement also witnessed the participation of prominent leaders, such as Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal
Nehru, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Subhas Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh, B. R. Ambedkar, and Vallabhbhai Patel. The
movement resulted in the partition of India and the creation of the independent states of India and Pakistan in 1947, and
later Bangladesh in 1971. The movement also shaped the political, cultural, and social identity of the Indian subcontinent,
as well as its relations with the rest of the world.

The Algerian War of Independence:

A guerrilla war fought between the National Liberation Front (FLN) and the French colonial forces from 1954 to 1962.
The war was sparked by the dissatisfaction of the Algerian people with the political, economic, and social conditions
under French rule, as well as the rise of nationalist and anti-colonial sentiments. The war was marked by violence,
atrocities, and human rights violations on both sides, as well as the involvement of external actors, such as the United
States, the Soviet Union, and the Arab League. The war ended with the Evian Accords in 1962, which granted Algeria its
independence and sovereignty. The war also influenced the formation of the Algerian nation-state, its political system, its
culture and identity, and its regional and international role.

The Mau Mau Uprising:

A rebellion against British colonialism and settler rule in Kenya from 1952 to 1960. The uprising was led by the Kikuyu
ethnic group, who formed the Mau Mau movement, a secret society that aimed to restore the land and rights of the
indigenous people. The uprising involved guerrilla warfare, sabotage, and civil disobedience, as well as the mobilization
of peasants, workers, and intellectuals. The uprising faced brutal repression and counter-insurgency from the British
forces, who declared a state of emergency, detained and tortured thousands of suspects, and killed tens of thousands of
rebels and civilians. The uprising contributed to the decolonization of Kenya and the emergence of the independent
Republic of Kenya in 1963, as well as the development of the Kenyan national identity, culture, and politics.

These are just some of the examples of anti-colonial movements and their role in shaping nations. There are many more
cases of anti-colonial resistance and liberation across the world, such as the Haitian Revolution, the Vietnamese War of
Independence, the Cuban Revolution, the Indonesian National Revolution, the African National Congress, and the
Palestine Liberation Organization. These movements have not only challenged and transformed the colonial order, but
also inspired and influenced other movements and struggles for freedom, justice, and dignity.

Colonization as a Global Phenomenon

Colonization as a global phenomenon is the process of establishing and maintaining political, economic, and cultural
domination over a foreign territory and its people by a powerful state or entity. Colonization has been practiced by various
civilizations throughout history, such as the Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Mongols, Turks, and Chinese.
However, the most widespread and impactful form of colonization was the modern colonialism that began in the 15th
century and lasted until the 20th century, when most of the colonized regions gained their independence.
Modern colonialism was driven by several factors, such as the desire for wealth, resources, markets, prestige, power, and
strategic advantages, as well as the spread of religion, civilization, and ideology. The main colonizers were the European
nations, such as Portugal, Spain, France, Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and Italy, as well as the United
States and Japan. The main regions that were colonized were the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Oceania.
The effects of colonization were profound and lasting, both for the colonizers and the colonized. Colonization brought
about the exchange of goods, ideas, technologies, diseases, and cultures, as well as the exploitation, oppression,
displacement, and resistance of the native peoples. Colonization also shaped the political, economic, and social structures,
institutions, and relations of the world, as well as the formation of national identities, ethnicities, and ideologies.
Colonization also contributed to the development of global phenomena, such as capitalism, imperialism, nationalism,
racism, and globalization.

Colonizer and Colonized

Colonizer and colonized are terms that refer to the actors and the effects of colonialism, which is the practice of one
country or group dominating and exploiting another country or group. Colonialism has a long and complex history that
spans across continents and centuries. Some of the most well-known examples of colonialism are the European conquest
and colonization of the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Oceania, as well as the American and Japanese expansionism in the
19th and 20th centuries.
A colonizer is someone who participates in or supports colonialism, either directly or indirectly. A colonizer may be a
settler, a soldier, a trader, a missionary, an administrator, or a politician who benefits from the exploitation of the
colonized people and resources. A colonizer may also be a cultural or ideological agent who imposes the values, norms,
and beliefs of the colonizing power on the colonized population. A colonizer may have different motives and intentions,
such as economic gain, religious conversion, political domination, or civilizing mission, but they all share the common
feature of exercising power and control over the colonized.
A colonized is someone who is subjected to or affected by colonialism, either directly or indirectly. A colonized may be a
native, an enslaved, a migrant, a rebel, a collaborator, or a nationalist who suffers from the oppression and exploitation of
the colonizer. A colonized may also be a cultural or ideological victim who internalizes the values, norms, and beliefs of
the colonizer and develops a sense of inferiority, dependency, or resistance. A colonized may have different responses and
reactions, such as acceptance, adaptation, assimilation, rebellion, or liberation, but they all share the common feature of
experiencing injustice and inequality under the colonizer.
The relationship between the colonizer and the colonized is one of the most important and controversial topics in the study
of colonialism and its aftermath. Many scholars, writers, and activists have explored and analyzed the psychological,
social, political, and economic effects of colonialism on both the colonizer and the colonized.

Power Dynamics

Power dynamics are the ways in which power is distributed and exercised among different actors and groups in a given
situation or context. Power dynamics can be influenced by various factors, such as social identities, roles, relationships,
resources, interests, values, norms, and institutions. Power dynamics can have positive or negative effects on individuals
and communities, depending on how power is used and for what purposes.

One of the most significant and complex examples of power dynamics is colonialism, which is the practice of one country
or group dominating and exploiting another country or group. Colonialism has a long and complex history that spans
across continents and centuries. Some of the most well-known examples of colonialism are the European conquest and
colonization of the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Oceania, as well as the American and Japanese expansionism in the 19th
and 20th centuries.

Legacy of Colonial Rule on Political Structures

The legacy of colonialism has had a profound impact on the political structures of many post-colonial
countries. According to a research paper by Endalcachew Bayeh from Bahir Dar University, colonialism has impacted the
political and economic conditions of contemporary Africa. The paper argues that post-independence African states
adopted the more centralized and authoritarian system of administration of their colonizers, which has led to ethnic-based
exclusion and marginalization. African states tended to one-party systems, and though opposition parties emerged, they
were highly restricted in their operation. Besides, corrupt behavior of the contemporary leaders of Africa also contributed
to the colonial experience.

Under European colonial rule, political and economic systems were reorganized. High-status Europeans were in charge of
the colonies. By the end of the nineteenth century, colonial administrations were self-financing systems. Local indigenous
leaders were bribed with titles, land, and tax breaks. This created an atmosphere of privilege that would create problems
after decolonization. Local leaders then helped colonial administrators to force the local population in to a capitalist
economic system.

Primary commodity production, or the production of raw materials, became the enforced norm, undermining traditional
crafts and mixed farming systems. Following the pattern of the forced-enclosure movement in Europe where communal
lands were enclosed and used privately for the production of market-based agriculture, farmers were forced into growing
cash-crops instead of growing crops for personal use.

A culture of export monoculture where a country produces one or more primary commodity became established, a
practice that is still at the heart of international trade today. South Africa became known for gold and diamonds, Mexico
for corn, and, India for cotton, tea, peanuts, and sugar cane. As a result of this reorganization, many indigenous farmers
lost their land to commercial agricultural production. Men were frequently removed from their homes to work on these
industrial farms in order to meet the growing demands for goods of European urban populations. The families left behind
struggled to make ends meet. Malnutrition and social unrest grew among indigenous groups.
Case Studies in Colonialism and State Formation (Examining Specific Colonies and Their Post-Colonial States.
Comparative Analysis of Colonies' State Structures. The Role of Colonized Intellectuals in State Building)

State formation

The term state formation is most commonly used to describe the long-term processes that led to the genesis of modern
political domination in the form of the territorial sovereign state.In the social sciences mainstream literature, modern state
formation is understood to have originated in Europe and expanded to other world regions through European colonialism
and the later integration of postcolonial states into the international state system. Modern state institutions were mostly
first introduced by European colonial rule, but merged with local forms of political organization in a number of ways. The
trajectories of colonial and postcolonial state formation have therefore differed from the European experience and brought
about different types of modern states, such as the developmental state, the neopatrimonial state, or the socialist-
bureaucratic state. As part of these developments, informal states, which show a de facto character of statehood but lack
formal international recognition, represent another form of modern state formation. The mid-1990s, state formation has
also been discussed as a concept describing the effects of the politics of state-building, a central aim and instrument of
many contemporary international military and civilian interventions, on the recipient states. Here, state formation is used
to differentiate the multiple intended and unintended effects of international military and civilian interventions on the de-
/institutionalization dynamics of states from their stated goals.

Case study of two African states

Ghana and Nigeria are interesting case studies to compare with South Africa because they mark the beginning of
decolonization in sub‐Saharan Africa. Hence, they were amongst the first African countries to face issues of inter‐racial
succession in the public and private sectors. Post‐apartheid South Africa, in contrast, is among the last states in Africa and
the world to undergo the difficult transition from a deeply unequal racial order to a postcolonial state. Moreover, the two
West African countries represent two different scenarios of postcolonial social evolution: one where social divisions
mostly rest on income and class (Ghana), and one where conflict runs along ethnic lines (Nigeria). In the South African
case both patterns occur: class distinctions have become more pronounced in the black population ,whereas the
relationship among different ethnic or racial groups such as whites (English‐ and Afrikaans‐speaking), coloureds, Asians
and blacks is reminiscent of the ethnic divisions in Nigeria.

Examining Specific Colonies and Their Post-Colonial States

Ghana and Nigeria were colonized by the British at the end of the nineteenth century, although coastal colonies existed in
both areas from the middle of the century, and trading links in legitimate commodities, as well as slaves, stretched back
even further. For most of the nineteenth century Europeans and African elites collaborated in trade and administration but,
by the end of the century, this began to change. As European nations scrambled for African territories, Britain subdued
previously independent African kingdoms and less centralized village‐based societies, displacing local trading networks
with their own firms and transportation infrastructure. Yet, until the early twentieth century, it was still common to see
West Africans serving in responsible posts in administration and merchant houses. Changing attitudes towards Africans
developed out of a combination of advances in medicine, which allowed Europeans to live on the coast without
succumbing to malaria and other diseases and a distinct shift in attitudes towards non‐Western people in the late
nineteenth century, marked by the rise of social Darwinism and racism. Subsequently Africans were effectively barred
from high‐ ranking positions in the public or private sectors, and isolated attempts from the late 1920s onwards to recruit
more West Africans into the civil service faltered.

After the Second World War the colonial civil service as well as private companies found it difficult to obtain enough
white recruits to staff their West African operations, which opened up opportunities for locals again. Political and
economic upheaval in the colonies led their governments to accede to demands for greater self‐determination and colonial
reform; by the early 1950s this accelerated to become a movement for full‐blown decolonization. Ghana became
independent under Kwame Nkrumah in 1957, and Nigeria followed suit ‐‐ as a federation with three powerful, regionally
based political parties ‐‐ in 1960. The economic fortunes of both countries, buoyed by the commodities boom of the
1950s, declined in the early 1960s, but then diverged when petroleum reserves were discovered in Eastern Nigeria. While
the Ghanian economy declined for most of the 1960s and 1970s, mostly due to government mismanagement and a decline
in its traditional exports (cocoa and gold), Nigeria‘s traditional commodities were displaced by the enormous wealth that
oil receipts brought from the late 1960s. In both countries, despite fundamentally different economic environments,
political patronage became practically the only way to become wealthy.

Both Ghana and Nigeria experimented from the late 1960s onwards with legislation to promote indigenization, which
forced foreign companies to incorporate locally and to sell equity to local interests. Although these efforts took place in a
climate where the overall value of foreign investment was questioned, only a few sectors, such as timber in Ghana and
finance in Nigeria, were expropriated completely .In the 1950s and 1960s the focus was much more on the advancement
of local people in the public and private sectors. The former was completely Africanized a few years after independence in
both countries but the latter retained a significant expatriate presence until the 1980s which was a source of local
irritation. In South Africa the sequence was the other way round: Black Economic Empowerment began with equity
transfers from white South African companies to black empowerment consortia, while the advancement of black South
Africans within companies (originally termed employment equity) gained visibility more slowly.

Comparative Analysis of Colonies' State Structures

Britain did not seek to assimilate African people into the British culture unlike France, and the idea of introducing them to
modernity through education was not the priority. Nevertheless, the British colonial officers were actively engaged in
converting Africans to Christianity and train African males to become religious leaders and later occupy religious
positions in the society such as a catechist, clergy, or a father. However, fearing the resistance and the opposition to this
practice from the Muslims in the North, the Christian missionaries were not sent to that region. They were also engaged in
teaching English to the natives and educating young Africans in basic knowledge in Arts and Sciences. British education
was more welcomed in the South than in the North and to prevent troubles with the Muslims, the British did not
extensively educate the Northern population. This resulted in a development gap between the two regions. The South was
more exposed to the positive benefits of colonialism. The region grew faster, its people received a western education and
were introduced to modern technology.

However, while the British attempted to modernize the South to gain its recognition, it focused on developing the military
in the North to strengthen its resistance in case an uprising occurs. In addition, unlike the French African army, the British
African defense forces such as the West African Frontier Force (WAFF) and the King‘s African Rifles (KAF) were
created to serve the British colonial interests in its African colonies only and did not include non-African soldiers.
Although African fighters were integrated into the British defense force outside Africa when the expansion of the British
army was needed during WW2 and the Cold War, their main working space was within Africa because as mentioned
earlier, Britain was very committed to having its colonial administration cost-effective in terms of foreign expenses and
men power. Hence in the development of the military in its African colonies, Crocker (1974) explained that Britain sought
to ‗‘ maximize local territorial self-sufficiency without recourse to non-African security forces ‗‘ and ‗‘ minimize the costs
of imperial policing through limited integration and standardization of African colonial units at the regional level ‗‘.

The Modern State in South Asia (State Formation in South Asia. Historical and Cultural Contexts. Diverse
Political Landscapes in the Region).

State Formation in South Asia

The foundation of the Indian National Congress in 1885 provided a convenient starting point for those with a desire for
chronological precision. The recent reorientation of modern Indian historiography towards subordinate social groups has
dramatically altered perspectives and added confusion, complexity, delicacy, and sophistication to the understanding of
Indian society in the high noon of colonialism. Anti colonialism can be seen now to have been a much more variegated
phenomenon than simply the clear opposition of educated urban groups filled with western concepts of liberalism and
nationalism. The currents and cross-currents of social reform informed by ‗reason‘, and its apparent rejection in
movements of religious revival, are being weighed and analysed more carefully. The overlapping nature of the
periodization of resistance is being recognized. The ulgulan or great tumult of 1899–1900 of the Munda tribe on the
Bengal–Bihar border was, after all, roughly coterminous with the first major attempt by the educated urban elite to
mobilize mass support for the swadeshi movement of 1905–8. What was unusual, however, about the late nineteenth
century was the interconnectedness, though not necessarily the convergence, of social and political developments across
regions on an exceptional scale. In that general sense it was during this period that the idioms, and even the irascible
habits, of communitarian identities and national ideologies were sought to be given a semblance of coherence and
structure. What needs emphasizing is that there were multiple and competing narratives informed by religious and
linguistic cultural identities seeking to contribute to the emerging discourse on the Indian nation.

Although in 1858 the colonial power had announced its intention not to interfere in the private territory of ‗religion‘ and
‗custom‘, its policies in the late nineteenth century ensured that precisely these concerns had to be discussed about in the
‗public‘ fields of the press and politics. A surplus of communitarian narratives written in ‗modernized‘ vernacular
languages, therefore, filled the pages mixed out by a burgeoning press and publications market. In order to gain the
attention of a colonial state minded to distribute differential support, publicists needed to dip their pens in the ink of
community. A direct public statement of anti-colonial politics ran the risk of running foul of the laws of sedition preserved
in a battery of vernacular press acts. The fictive separation of religion and politics in the colonial stance was breached the
moment the British took the momentous decision to deploy religious enumeration to define ‗majority‘ and ‗minority‘
communities. Colonial constitutional initiatives lent religiously-based communitarian affiliations a greater supra-local
significance than regional, linguistic, class and sectarian divergences might otherwise have warranted. The most important
step in this regard was the construction of the political category of ‗Indian Muslim‘.

Historical and Cultural Contexts

From the most ancient times downwards, all nations have directed their wishes and longings to gaining access to the
treasures of this land of marvels, the most costly which the Earth presents; treasures of Nature — pearls, diamonds,
perfumes, rose-essences, elephants, lions, etc. — as also treasures of wisdom. The way by which these treasures have
passed to the West, has at all times been a matter of World-historical importance, bound up with the fate of nations.

In the early twentieth century Gandhi lamented in his tract Hind Swaraj: ‗the English have not taken India; we have given
it to them. They are not in India because of their strength but because we keep them . . . Recall the Company Bahadur.
Who made it Bahadur . . . it is truer to say that we gave India to the English than that India was lost.’

India may have been a name given by foreigners, but its emotive appeal came to be internalized by many inhabitants of
this land. The ancient Persians and Arabs referred to the land beyond the river Sindhu or Indus as Al-Hind or Hindustan,
and the people inhabiting that land as Hindu. The words India and Indian were simply Greek, Roman, and finally English
versions of the old Persian terminology. It was only gradually that the term Hindu came to be associated with the
followers of a particular religious faith as a matter of convenience since the ‗Hindus‘ did not deploy a single term to
define their religion. A leading twentieth-century Muslim poet writing in Urdu had no difficulty celebrating Hindustan as
his own: Mohammad Iqbal in his ‗Tarana-i-Hindi‘ (The Anthem of Hind) of 1904 extolled the virtues of his homeland:

Sarey jahan sey achhaa, ye Hindustan hamara

Hum bulbulen hain iske, ye gulsitan hamara

(Better than the whole world is our Hindustan We are its singing birds, it is our garden of delights)

Iqbal later became one of the foremost proponents of a homeland for India‘s Muslims. On the eve of partition in 1947
Mohammad Ali Jinnah, widely acknowledged as the founder of this homeland, wrote indignantly about ‗the wholly
unwarranted assumption that Pakistan would be an area seceding from the Indian state‘, arguing that there could be no
union of India without the Muslim-majority areas of the subcontinent. In the fifty years since independence and partition
the political and ideational contests among its own people for proprietorship over the soul of the subcontinent have, if
anything, greatly intensified.

Both South Asia and India are in origin geographical expressions. South Asia is a more recent construction — only about
five decades old — which today encompasses seven diverse sovereign states of very different sizes: India, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and the Maldives. Some would also include Myanmar, which as Burma was a
province of British India until 1935. The term India, as we have seen, is of much older origin. What South Asia lacks in
historical depth, it makes up for in political neutrality. The terms South Asia and India refer in the first instance to a vast
geographical space

stretching from the Himalayan mountain ranges in the north to the Indian ocean in the south and from the valley of the
Indus in the west to the plains of the Brahmaputra in the east. This huge geographical expanse has become home to a
teeming population numbering nearly a billion people who account for over a fifth or, to be more precise, 23 per cent of
humanity. The subcontinent carries the weight not only of its people but also of their ancient history, stretching back five
millennia, and a modern history encompassing the experience of British colonialism compressed in tumultuous
developments within the past couple of centuries. It is a commonplace in any introduction to South Asian history to
expound on the cliché about the region‘s unity in diversity. It may be more appropriate to characterize South Asia and its
peoples as presenting a picture of diversity in unity, indeed of immense diversity within a very broad contour of unity.
The geographical boundaries drawn by the highest mountain ranges in the world and encircling seas and oceans set the
whole of the subcontinent apart from the rest of the world. Yet within these boundaries there is great diversity in natural
attributes — imposing hills and mountains, lush green river plains, arid deserts and brown plateaus. People inhabiting
such a clearly defined, yet diverse, region have evolved a shared cultural ambience, but at the same time are deeply
attached to distinctive cultural beliefs and practices. The people of South Asia speak at least twenty major languages, and
if one includes the more important dialects the count rises to over two hundred. Adherents to every major world religion
are to be found in the subcontinent. The majority of the population of India are Hindu, but they are distinguished along
lines of language and caste. Each of the three most populous countries in South Asia — India, Bangladesh and Pakistan
— has well over a hundred million Muslims. India was also the birthplace of Buddhism, even though formal believers in
this religious faith have dwindled in the land of its birth.The region also contains significant Christian, Sikh and other
religious minorities.

Diverse Political Landscapes in the Region

The political philosophy of the state, based on the metaphysical view of the kingdom as a microcosmic version of
the universe, left little room for the development of a set of relationships that presumed the existence of more than
one state. The principal characteristics of this regional system can be summarized in terms of four components:
weak institutions, weak interactions, limited regional recognition, and patterns of dependence on extra regional
powers.

Each nation in the political fabric of South Asia spins its own tale, fusing difficulties and opportunities in a delicate dance.
The greatest democracy in the world, India, struggles with issues like a diverse population, local conflicts, and economic
inequality. Pakistan's geopolitical landscape is characterized by a risky equilibrium that navigates internal stability,
relations with India, and the fight against terrorism. Afghanistan seeks stability amidst shifting regional power dynamics
following years of conflict. Bangladesh must simultaneously work toward political stability and economic progress. With
its post-civil war era, Sri Lanka aims for peace and sustainable development. Settled in the Himalayas, Nepal and
Bhutan forge their own trajectories amidst regional pressures. A glimpse of a better future is provided by the region's
youth demography, economic potential, and shared desire for growth despite these obstacles. The political landscape of
South Asia is a very interesting kaleidoscope of hues that is always changing and influencing the future of its countries.
The 'success' of democracy in India and its 'failure' in neighboring Pakistan and Bangladesh has been one of the more
fascinating subjects in modern South Asia. However, research on democratic politics in India and military-dominated
authoritarian governments like Pakistan and Bangladesh has rarely discussed, much less explained, how a shared British
colonial history resulted in what appear to be opposite political growth patterns in South Asia after independence (Jalal,
1995). In South Asia, the triangular relationships between Bangladesh, India, and Nepal present a fascinating and unusual
set of circumstances that highlight the impact that one country's policies can have on neighboring nations. India has
substantially influenced the foreign economic ties between Bangladesh and India as well as between India and Nepal,
particularly insofar as the cooperation and development of water resources is concerned. In fact, Bangladesh and Nepal
are geographically close to India, which has forced them to collaborate with India in how each nation uses its water
resources. The numerous continuing conflicts in the region have made it difficult for South Asia to have lasting peace and
development. The SAARC has avoided meddling in the domestic affairs of its member states, but political discourse
frequently takes place in the background of its sessions. Greater cooperation amongst SAARC countries was strongly
emphasized during the 12th and 13th SAARC meetings in order to combat terrorism.

Theorizing the State in Pakistan. Political Theories and Pakistan's Statehood. The Role of Religion in State
Identity.

Theorizing the State in Pakistan

Like India, Pakistan achieved independence from British rule as a dominion within the Commonwealth on August 14-15,
1947, the former day celebrated annually as the country‘s Independence Day. However, the leaders of the Muslim
League rejected Lord Mountbatten, the last British viceroy of India, to be Pakistan‘s first governor-general, or head of
state—in contrast to the Congress, which made him India‘s chief executive. Wary of Britain‘s machinations and desirous
of rewarding Jinnah—their ―Great Leader‖ (Quaid-e Azam), a title he was given before independence—Pakistanis made
him their governor-general; his lieutenant in the party, Liaquat Ali Khan, was named prime minister. Pakistan‘s first
government, however, had a difficult task before it. Unlike Muhammad Iqbal‘s earlier vision for Pakistan, the country had
been formed from the two regions where Muslims were the majority—the northwestern portion he had espoused and the
territories and the eastern region of Bengal province (which itself had also been divided between India and Pakistan).
Pakistan‘s two wings, therefore, were separated by some 1,000 miles (1,600 km) of sovereign Indian territory with no
simple routes of communication between them. Further complicating the work of the new Pakistani government was the
realization that the wealth and resources of British India had been granted to India. Pakistan had little but raw enthusiasm
to sustain it, especially during those months immediately following partition. In fact, Pakistan‘s survival seemed to hang
in the balance. Of all the well-organized provinces of British India, only the comparatively less developed areas
of Sind, Balochistan, and the North-West Frontier Province came to Pakistan intact. The otherwise more developed
provinces of Punjab and Bengal were divided, and, in the case of Bengal, Pakistan received little more than the densely
populated rural hinterland.

Adding to the dilemma of the new and untested Pakistan government was the crisis in Kashmir, which provoked a war
between the two neighbouring states in the period immediately following their independence. Both Pakistan and India
intended to make Kashmir a component of their respective unions, and the former princely state quickly became disputed
territory—with India and Pakistan controlling portions of it—and a flash point for future conflicts. Economically, the
situation in Pakistan was desperate; materials from the Indian factories were cut off from Pakistan, disrupting the new
country‘s meagre industry, commerce, and agriculture. Moreover, the character of the partition and its aftermath had
caused the flight of millions of refugees on both sides of the divide, accompanied by terrible massacres. The exodus of
such a vast number of desperate people in each direction required an urgent response, which neither country was prepared
to manage, least of all Pakistan.

As a consequence of the unresolved war in Kashmir and the communal bloodletting in the streets of both countries, India
and Pakistan each came to see the other as its mortal enemy. The Pakistanis had anticipated a division of India‘s material,
financial, and military assets. In fact, there would be none. New Delhi displayed no intention of dividing the assets of
British India with its major adversary, thereby establishing a balance between the two countries. Moreover, India‘s
superior geopolitical position and, most importantly, its control of the vital rivers that flowed into Pakistan meant that the
Muslim country‘s water supplies were at the mercy of its larger, hostile neighbour. Pakistan‘s condition was so precarious
following independence that many observers believed the country could hardly survive six months and that India‘s goal of
a unified subcontinent remained a distinct possibility.

Political Theories and Pakistan's Statehood. The Role of Religion in State Identity.

The role of Islam in the political and cultural unification of Pakistan has been controversial. Some factions have argued
that Islamic ideology is the only cement that can bind together the country‘s culturally diverse peoples. Opposing factions
have argued that the insistence on Islamic ideology, in opposition to regional demands expressed in secular and
cultural idiom, has alienated regional groups and eroded national unity.

The Pakistan People‘s Party (PPP) was formed in 1968 by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, working with a number of liberal leftists
who wanted Pakistan to disregard the idiom of religion in politics in favour of a program of rapid modernization of the
country and the introduction of a socialist economy. The PPP emerged as the majority party in West Pakistan in the
elections of 1970 (though the Awami League in East Pakistan won the largest number of legislative seats). Following the
disruption of the ensuing war, which produced the independent country of Bangladesh from East Pakistan, Bhutto was
called to form a government in 1972. The PPP was suppressed under the military government of 1977–88 but returned
to power in 1988–90 and 1993–96 under the leadership of Bhutto‘s daughter Benazir. In 2008, after the nine-year period
of military rule, the party joined in a civilian coalition government.

The Muslim League, formed in 1906 in what is now Bangladesh, had spearheaded the Pakistan independence movement
under Mohammed Ali Jinnah. However, by the time of the military coup in 1958 it had endured many setbacks and much
fragmentation, and in 1962 it splintered into two parts, the Conventionist Pakistan Muslim League and the Council
Muslim League. In the elections of 1970 it almost disappeared as a political party, but it was resurrected in 1985 and
became the most important component of the Islamic Democratic Alliance, which took over Punjab‘s administration in
1988. Since then, Muslim League factions have been associated with powerful personalities (e.g., Nawaz
Sharif and Pervez Musharraf).

The Islamic Assembly (Jamāʿat-e Islāmī), founded in 1941 by Abū al-Aʿlā Mawdūdī (Maududi), commands a great deal
of support among the urban lower-middle classes (as well as having great influence abroad). Two other religious parties,
the Assembly of Islamic Clergy (Jamīʿat ʿUlamāʾ-e Islām) and the Assembly of Pakistani Clergy (Jamīʿat ʿUlamāʾ-e
Pakistan), have strong centres of support, the former in Karachi and the latter in the rural areas of the Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa.

In 1996 the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) was formed by cricket player Imran Khan to oppose government corruption
and promote social welfare. It remained uncompetitive and marginal until the 2010s, when it took a
decidedly populist approach to politics, organizing large rallies and courting several veteran politicians. In the 2013
elections the party received the second highest number of votes for seats in the National Assembly and won leadership of
the provincial government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Its popularity continued to surge, especially as a corruption scandal
shook confidence in the ruling party in the run-up to the 2018 elections; it emerged as the National Assembly‘s largest
party after elections were held.

Ethnic interests are served by organizations such as the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (formerly the Muhajir Qaumi
Movement) in Karachi and Hyderabad, the Sindhi National Front in Sindh, and the Balochistan Students Union
in Balochistan.

The Post-Colonial State in the Global Context. Post-Colonial States and the Challenges of Nation-Building
Sovereignty and Statehood.

The Post-Colonial State in the Global Context

Postcolonialism refers to the historical period or state of affairs representing the aftermath of Western colonialism. The
term can also be used to describe the concurrent project to reclaim and rethink the history and agency of people
subordinated under various forms of imperialism. Postcolonialism signals a possible future of overcoming colonialism,
yet new forms of domination or subordination can come in the wake of such changes, including new forms of global
empire. Postcolonialism should not be confused with the claim that the world we live in now is actually devoid of
colonialism. Postcolonial theorists and historians have been concerned with investigating the various trajectories of
modernity as understood and experienced from a range of philosophical, cultural, and historical perspectives. They have
been particularly concerned with engaging with the ambiguous legacy of the Enlightenment —as expressed in social,
political, economic, scientific, legal, and cultural thought—beyond Europe itself. The legacy is ambiguous, according to
postcolonial theorists, because the age of Enlightenment was also an age of empire, and the connection between those two
historical epochs is more than incidental.

Post-Colonial States and the Challenges of Nation-Building Sovereignty and Statehood

The post‐colonial state has been characterized in two different ways—in terms of its political and economic agenda, and
in terms of its ‗infrastructural capacity‘. Most post‐colonial states have started from an interventionist standpoint.
However, the capacity of these states to implement their programmes has been affected crucially by the political system
that has evolved in these states. The post‐colonial state has been characterized as ‗strong‘ or ‗weak‘ on the basis of its
capacity to implement political decisions—whether the political infrastructure is in place and functioning well or not. This
would distinguish a ‗strong‘ state from a merely ‗despotic‘ one. State capacity is, of course, linked to the economic
resources available to the state but also to the evolving relations between the political executive and the bureaucracy on
the one hand and state and civil society on the other. The ‗embeddedness‘ of the state in society has been regarded by
some as a feature of a ‗strong‘ state in the context of cooperation of important state and societal interest groups, and by
others as characterizing a ‗weak‘ state where the state is penetrated by civil society and interest groups that are too strong
for it to control. The weak capacity of the post‐colonial state is also linked to levels of political violence, in that the
governability of a society is dependent upon the political infrastructure of the state, in the absence of which the state
increasingly relies upon the use of violence and sets up a pattern of counter‐violence in societies. Governability is thus a
continuing and growing concern for post‐colonial states. Under globalization, the post‐colonial state is facing new
challenges. On the one hand, it has been argued that all states are ‗hollowing out‘ and losing their pre‐eminent position on
the political landscape, while on the other, states are seen as repositioning themselves to take advantage of globalization.
Post‐colonial states have, in this context, also been called ‗competition states‘—competing to attract global capital. It has
also been suggested that these states are facing a new form of imperialism—economic imperialism—as they ‗race to the
bottom‘ and become increasingly vulnerable and dependent upon global capitalism.