Welcome to the 21st Century

Nation-states are formed when a state is established on the principle that the people or the nation is the sovereign within a state. However, the notion that a nation is the sovereign in a state, means any other nation is seen as an ‘outsider’ to that nation. Nations feel threatened by other surrounding nations within their states and other nation states and the need arises to ensure the nation’s security. National security, an idea built on an “us vs them” conception of the position of the nation, became the logic behind making the nation-state as strong as possible, to ward off any threats to the security of the state. Powerful elites used the idea of national security to consolidate control over the nation-state. The idea of national security depends on the presence of threats, enemies and conflicts, and, when national security comes to dominate a state’s policy the security apparatus of the state, that is the army etc, become among the most preeminent institutions within the state, as the guardian’s of the nation’s security.

Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century, as nationalism spread, and nation-states formed all over the world, so did the idea of national security become a focal point of state policy around the world. The new international system was dominated by ideas of balance of power, alliances, and encirclement, strategies that were used to ensure a nation-state’s security against potential threats from other states.

However, with the end of the Cold War, the apogee of the old international system, a new international landscape has emerged. New challenges have come forth, such as international terrorist networks like Al-Qaeda, which belong to no single nation-state, and which no strategies of enriclement, balance of power, and state-to-state confrontation can eliminate, as the failures of George W. Bush's War on Terror made strikingly clear. In this new world order, states confer parts of their sovereign control to international institutions, co-dependency on both a regional and a global level is accepted, and security and stability of a state cannot be ensured through treating everything beyond the nation-state as a potential threat to the nation. With the twentieth century the ‘us vs them’ philosophy, the dictum of the national security state had died.

It is time that the peoples and states of South Asia realize this as well. The country of Pakistan is in an especially problematic position. A country built on the very ideal of national security, that the Indian Muslim population required security from a Hindu-dominated Indian state, Pakistan’s existence was premised on national security, and hence, so was the direction the country took. The state apparatus right from the beginning was taken over by the army, and since then the military has continually used external enemies as a rationale to perpetuate its power. Pakistan is a state devoid of an internal identity, and merely exists, on the premise that the people within its borders need to be protected. Hence, all policy is built around manufacturing ‘us vs them’ scenarios, and adopting strategies accordingly. From confronting Indian aggression, to preventing Indian and Afghani encirclement, to holding up against American hegemony, Pakistan’s establishment depends on constant external conflicts, and uses it to keep the nation in line.

Today, Pakistan is a failing state, unable to find its place in the world of the twenty-first century. The horrific attacks of 26/11 in Mumbai, the culpability of Pakistan’s security apparatus, and the ineffectiveness of Pakistan’s fledgling civilian administration, along with the paranoia of conspiracy and encirclement in the Pakistani people, all speaks volumes of the state of this nation-state.

On the other hand, we have India. India is a state, so vast, diverse and multi-faceted that it is difficult for the state to create a comprehensive narrative and identity, of what the Indian nation is. Yet, in spite of its massive problems, popular sovereignty prevails, and India is a state on the fast-track to taking its place among the most powerful and influential states in the twenty-first century. If it is to do this, the one thing it cannot do is behave like a twentieth-century power. True, there is a need for the government of India to take a stand against the terrorist attacks of 26/11. Yet, in the aftermath of the attacks, a newly awakened elite speaks of solutions such as increasing the power of the state to promote national security within the country, as well as take military action against Pakistan. This is the wrong conversation to be having in the twenty-first century, and will only help undermine any real effort the country wants to make in fighting terrorism, and ensuring the safety and prosperity of India.

The condition and position of Pakistan should be a strong warning to India, not to fall into the trap of moving any further in the direction of a national security state. The people of Pakistan need to realize that the condition of their country is primarily their own doing, and blaming the rest of the world, will be its own undoing.