"Not until we dare to regard ourselves as a nation, not until we respect ourselves, can we gain the esteem of others, or rather only then will come of its own accord."
– Albert Einstein
Do we, as Sri Lankans, dare to regard ourselves as a nation? More importantly, did we ever develop a true sense of belonging; one that is commonly shared by all of us? If so, how does it reflect in our social interactions and behaviours? How do we even define such a concept or rather such a feeling? Do we define it in political and/or legal terms or in terms of our shared history and culture?
According to Ernest Renan, 19th century French historian and philosopher, the existence of a nation is a daily plebiscite embodied by the desire to live together. In this regard, one could say that the concept of a nation is based on a sense of common belonging which implies the existence of a sustainable commitment to live in a common group. A nation would thus more likely be seen as an ideological construct than a concrete reality.
Developed by thinkers
This contrasts with the German vision that was developed by thinkers such as Johann Fichte and Johann Herder who defined a nation through monolingualism and common ethnicity; a definition which is unfortunately quite similar to what we are now facing in Sri Lanka.
Having been subject to colonialism for years and having gone through a protracted civil war, today must be the first time we, Sri Lankans, ever got the time to actually breathe and possibly start thinking or seeing ourselves as a nation. At least that is the rational mindset that one would have expected from any society that had gone through years of affliction. Nevertheless, despite all this, our recent socio-political behaviours can only make us wonder whether we truly seized this moment as an opportunity to rebuild ourselves as a nation or whether the current mindsets that are present in some segments of our society are not signs of a cyclic and recurrent disease, patiently consuming us over and over again.
Following both the decolonization and the war, two alternatives opened up for us. One was to resort to a regressive identity that would establish itself on our inherited communal traditions and beliefs. The other was to adopt a more progressive identity; one which would have been to some extent similar to what Renan had advocated in his discoursed 'Qu'est-ce qu'une nation?' (What is a nation?). Sadly, both times, we ended up opting for the first alternative. Both times, we ended up building our very own regressive and parochial identity/ies to the detriment of a more inclusive Sri Lankan identity.
In fact, as history demonstrates, privileging a certain type of ethno-nationalism often leads to recurrent societal divisions that impede the formation of consensus to effectively develop, change or even implement policies; policies that should primarily focus on nation-building.
In the case of Sri Lanka, continuous and relentless efforts should be made in the current transitional post-war period so as to ensure that the various cultures that form our nation are not only respected but also expressed freely by all. It is in this regard that the nation building process plays a pivotal role in inculcating and developing a more responsible and collective consciousness and behaviour towards one another.
The very viability of a nation-State depends indeed on the degree to which individuals or citizens identify themselves with the State by ultimately developing a perception of belonging that goes beyond ethno nationalism. This requires developing a new form of (civic) nationalism, one in which people identify themselves as citizens who belong to a nation rather than to a particular ethnicity or community.
The Singapore example
Some may argue that the said conception of nationalism mainly remains applicable to Western countries and that it is not compatible with Sri Lanka where the complexity of the situation is such that communal beliefs will always prevail over unity. But let's put aside, for a moment, the French or British notions of liberal nationalism. Even in South Africa, the ANC's first step post-Apartheid was to generate national unity through a different form of civic nationalism. Its approach was to promote political openness and inclusiveness by creating a sense of shared public culture based on freedom and equality. Similarly, countries such as Singapore, in which unlike Sri Lanka, people do not possess a shared history or common ancestry, managed to successfully formulate inclusive policies that directly addressed issues pertaining to ethnicity, language, religion and ultimately belonging. To achieve this, the government had launched a new vision for Singapore, one that would progress beyond infrastructural achievements and establish instead a society that puts people at its very centre.
Today, such an ideology is terribly lacking in Sri Lanka and would appear to be vital in building a sustainable peace. However, to be effective, such a vision requires people to reconcile both their national and communal identities. For this to happen, Sri Lanka needs to (re)conceptualize its national identity by further deepening social cohesion and mostly by developing a true sense of belonging; one that could eventually incorporate a broader notion of unity not only within the island but also through its Diaspora. This means not merely seeing Sri Lanka as a place, but as our home, as part of who we are no matter where we are.
The earlier call by India’s Minister of External Affairs Mr. Salmon Khurshid urging Sri Lanka to implement the 13th Amendment in full and even go beyond was followed by a similar call by India’s National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon during his recent visit to Sri Lanka. While India does not seem to miss any opportunity to remind Sri Lanka of implementing the 13th Amendment, a vibrant debate is going on within Sri Lanka regarding its retention in the current form, revision of certain provisions, or repealing its altogether.
