On “Civilization States” vs. Nation-States

This is a rebuttal to X.T.M’s recent post on  “civilization states” .  The longer essay can be read here 

In this context, Shashi Tharoor’s essay “Civilization States Are Profoundly Illiberal” is well-worth reading in full.  Tharoor is a centrist Indian and can be said to articulate the Congress Party’s position on this topic. 

Civilizational State vs. Nation-State

Google defines “Civilizational state” as one that “defines itself and its identity based on a unique and encompassing civilization, rather than solely on shared ethnicity, language or governance”. Google goes on to note that “ the differing worldviews and values associated with civilizational states could potentially lead to tensions and conflicts with other nations or blocs”. In India’s case, defining itself as a “civilizational state” certainly leads to tensions with Pakistan (and perhaps to a growing extent with Bangladesh).

I believe that this “civilizational state” conception is a belief of the Hindu Right. I agree with the Indian left that the Republic of India is a nation-state that was created on August 15, 1947–exactly at the same moment that Pakistan was created. British India was not a nation-state but a colony. Upon decolonization, parts of the colony went their own way.

Shashi Tharoor– an Indian politician belonging to the Congress party and someone who I would argue is a centrist– argues that the “civilization state” is inherently illiberal. Tharoor writes:

The very concept of a civilization state is profoundly illiberal. It implies that any attempt to introduce “imported” ideas like democracy or human rights must be resisted because they are “foreign” to the civilization in whose name the state is being constructed. The rejection of values (like democracy, civil liberties, minority rights, freedom of the press and so on) that liberalism trumpets as universally desirable is justified on the grounds that a civilization needs political institutions that reflect its own traditions, history and culture. A civilization state is inhospitable territory to religious and ethnic minorities, dissidents and challengers because they are seen as intruders into a civilization to which they do not essentially belong — and which regards what matters to them as alien, and therefore illegitimate.1

A little later in the essay, he goes on:

It is possible to be proud of one’s civilization and honor one’s traditions while striving to ensure that one’s nation upholds the principles and values one deems desirable for oneself and one’s fellow citizens. While do so, the reason I resist the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s attempts to reconstitute India as a civilization state is precisely because such a notion has no place for non-Hindus (some 20% of the country’s population) except as second-class citizens confined to subordinate roles. My idea of an “inclusive India” embraces different languages, religions, regions and ethnicities on an equal basis and emerges from classical liberalism. I can justify it in terms of my civilizational heritage too, but resist the notion of a “civilization state” because its advocates have a narrow and exclusionary idea of what such a state implies.

As Tharoor so eloquently argues, the assumption behind calling India a “civilizational state” is that India belongs to the “Hindu” civilization. This notion is obviously very off-putting for Indian Muslims, Christians and other minority groups. It is not really an issue for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis since we have nation-states of our own. In Pakistan, the general consensus is that our country was created as the homeland of the Muslims of British India. Post the creation of Bangladesh in 1971, this argument also became problematic since the independence of that country (whose population formed the majority of “united” Pakistan) clearly proves that Islam alone was not enough to define national identity. However, while Bangladesh chose to become independent from (West) Pakistan, they didn’t show any desire to merge their country with West Bengal. Thus, one could argue that Bangladeshis see themselves as Bengali Muslims and not simply as Bengalis. The country’s constitution initially declared it to be a secular state but later Islam was introduced as the state religion. Thus, this debate remains a live one in Bangladesh.