Around the world, the narrative of the past two hundred years can arguably be framed in terms of how peoples of different 'nations' have come together and defined their nationalisms, and how they have succeeded – or not – in evolving into nation states. Most modern states take nationalism as their raison d'etre; and where an 'organic' nationalism does not exist, states generally have tried their utmost to manufacture one. Nationalism has thus enabled peoples across the world to work towards common aspirations, even while it simultaneously continues to define contours of strife.
Interestingly, for such a seemingly basic unit, nation as an entity is hard to define. Religion, language, culture, ethnicity – all have been proposed as bases for national identity, but none appears to be sufficient. In the absence of answers, questions loom, of both academic and practical interest. What makes some nations viable states while preventing others from achieving such a status? How is it that countries that have only tenuous claims to a common national identity are at times able to evolve into successful states? How does one negotiate the varied human identities to coalesce into a viable nationalism? Southasia certainly encapsulates these conundrums. The borders of the nation states of our region would be quite different depending on what definition of a 'nation' one subscribes to. Conversely, it would be difficult to come up with a logic of 'nationalism' that fully explains nation states as they currently stand. One can only conclude that historical accident and circumstance have as large a role to play as nationalism does.
Yet despite the obvious dangers of nationalism – particularly its tendency to define itself as much by whom it excludes as by whom it includes – it is not necessarily a negative force, unless it veers towards extremism and fanaticism, becoming 'ultra'-nationalism. Indeed, the multiple identities of the average Southasian, emerging from the foundation of clan and family, eventually encompass language, faith, ethnicity, caste, gotra, province, district, city, village, and even hill flanks and watersheds. Still, here as in the rest of the world, it is the identity of the nation state that has been ascendant for the past half-century or more.
Even though the movement for the Independence of India might have been largely towards the creation of one independent nation state, the eventual result was several units. With the already existing nation states, and the success of the region's other anti-colonial struggles, what resulted was a Subcontinent divided into multiple constituent parts. The two largest countries of the Subcontinent were immediately in strategic competition, for which the development of separate Indian and Pakistani nationalisms became essential. The ramifications of this, in Pakistan, and the state's resultant attempts at 'nation-building', constitute the focus of the cover section of this issue of Himal.