Ethnic nationalism versus Civic nationalism

By Mass L. Usuf
When the Parliament met for the first time on 20 January 2015 after the Presidential
elections the Prime Minister Mr. Ranil Wickremasinghe said, inter alia, Irrespective
of being Sinhala, Tamil or Muslim, we must try to find a solution as Sri Lankans. His
sagely admonition came in the form of these words, We should abhor
racism. Nationalism is an ideological concept through which a national identity is
created to its citizens and a sense of belonging to ones nation.
This can broadly be classified into civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism. The
Prime Minister, as an educated and veteran politician, was indeed referring to civic
nationalism in contrast to ethnic or racial nationalism. Civic nationalism promotes
values of freedom, individual rights, equality and tolerance.
Democracy is a system where the Law rules. It is the Rule of Law that protects the
rights of citizens, maintains order, and limits the powers of government. Therefore, in
a democracy all citizens are equal before the law.
This is enshrined in our Constitution in Article 12 (1) :
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the
law.
Article 12 (2) reads, No citizen shall be discriminated against on the grounds of race,
religion, language, caste, sex, political opinion, place of birth or any one of such
grounds.

Patriots
These two Articles in the Constitution sets the stage for civic nationalism.
That is, political convergence of a citizenry at one point, as citizens of one country.
Patriotism is developed through this sense of belonging. Reflect on the words spoken
by Barrack Hussein Obama in his first speech to a national audience in Boston for the
2004 Democratic National Convention, Theres not a liberal America and a
conservative America; theres the United States of America. Theres not a black
America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America; theres the
United States of America.
The malady of racial politics has infected our political system and has been accepted as
such by the people. Lack of proper political education on the principles of democracy
and what they exactly mean are some of the reasons. Initially, our masses were
ignorant and not exposed to the Westminster style of governance, the democratic
system of rule and the universal franchise. The politicians happily rode on this
ignorance.
Thomas Jefferson is quoted to have said, A democracy is nothing more than mob
rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other fortynine. Factor into this statement the more than fifty-one percent as the Sinhala
majority voters of this country and the rest as the minority voters. Minority not in
terms of democracy but by racial segregation. Comically, it becomes a government by
the Sinhalese, for the Sinhalese and of the Sinhalese. In the Jeffersonian sense is it a
democracy or an ochlocracy ? Paradoxically, in a democracy the people are the
ultimate authority.
A page from the political history of the sub-continent will tell us if an ethnic or racial
nationalist can be called a patriot ? The Indians during Gandhis struggle for
independence considered themselves patriots by starting the Swadeshi movement.
Not buying anything that was British. This was a patriotic movement arising out of

civic nationalism. A sense of belongingness to ones nation as a whole irrespective of

being a Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Sikh. Compare that with our own people for
example, Bodu Bala Senas call to boycott muslims shops of their own countrymen.
This boycott call of BBS is also ridiculously labeled by them as patriotism. Mark
Twain famously said about a misplaced patriot as someone who can holler the loudest
without knowing what he is hollering about".
Civic nationalism
Contextually, is it right to assume that most Sri Lankans are either narrow minded or
ignorant of real nationalism. Our primary focus is on the race, if one is a Sinhala,
Tamil, Muslim or other. The sense of belonging is to the race rather than to the
country (jus soli). Ethnic nationalism is founded upon the bond of strong racial
descent or heredity. The problem with ethnic nationalism is it gives way to xenophobic
tendencies. The recent halal issue, dress code of muslims etc. are all illustrative of
xenophobia. Such manifestations are in general irrational, unfounded or based on
some ulterior motive. The survival of ethno-centrism however, depends on the
consistent maintenance of a constant fear level. Locally, it is the apprehension of a
diminishing Sinhala race.
Civic nationalism, on the other hand, is a non racial political membership. Civic
nationalism values the individual as a citizen of the country and defends his freedom,
individuality and his national identity. More aligned to the idea of jus soli, right to the
soil rather than to a racial blood lineage.
It is a stark reality that in Sri Lanka the target group for racial profiling is the muslim
community. Barring occasional insignificant riots, there is no evidence to prove any
concentratedly intense activity in the past against this ethnic community. This is
clearly a recent phenomenon. Either, a tiny minority of the majority race, has

suddenly woken up to an unfounded imaginative reality or is being driven by some

force for whatever reason.
In this environment even if muslims vote it is seen with suspicion and skepticism.
Ironically, though, like last time, the vote was cast for either of the two Sinhala
candidates. No one in his right senses can assert that 100
per cent of the muslims who cast their votes, did vote only for Maithripala Sirisena.
There were thousands who voted for Mahinda Rajapakse too.
But, the xenophobic distrust overrides rational thinking. So we see the danger of
ethnic nationalism to our country in contrast to civic nationalism.
The continuation of ethnic nationalism by any race will be disastrous for this country.
Can anyone imagine a Tamil becoming the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka ? It is only
civic nationalism that will bring about the prospect of a Sri Lankan Abdul Kalam as
the President of Sri Lanka or a Tamil Manmohan Singh as its Prime Minister. It
costs us nothing to learn the good lessons from our huge neighbour. However, read
what BBS is planning to learn from India.
Hindutva
The Bodu Bala Sena by its own poor foresight has been driven into oblivion. It needs
to act to keep its credibility from sinking further. Fortunately, there is a change in
government where the BBS cannot re-enact its anti-social, disastrous antics as in the
past. Since it is fast becoming a spent force of no Buddhist and/or Sinhala racist
appeal, it has to look elsewhere for survival/dramatisation. It is reportedly in talks
with the RSS and BJP to form a common front to fight the muslims in Sri Lanka.
Demonising one community for its survival.
Vinayak Damodar Savakar wrote his book Hindutva : Who is a Hindu ? published in

1923, when he was serving a jail sentence for an assassination plot on Curzon-Wyllie,
an associate of the British Secretary of State. (V.S. Anand, SavarkarA Study in the
Evolution of Indian Nationalism (London: Woolf, 1967). Hindutva, a doctrine
meaning Hindu Nationalism or the idea of fashioning India as a distinctly Hindu
nation, was an underlying policy of the BJP throughout its existence, being used in
varying degrees as seen fit politically.
Interestingly, BBS does not know as Hansen, Thomas Blom writes in his book, The
Saffron Wave, 917 : Democratic Revolution and the Growth of
Hindu Nationalism in India, At the same time it (BJP) could still put on its
moderate face in order to court minorities, even Muslims, by promoting its positive
secularism doctrine and integral humanism, which stressed the importance of
every individual in society and how both society and the individual were essential for
the existence, growth, and manifestation of the other. The political immaturity and
opportunistic manoeuvering of Bodu Bala Sena is clear as daylight. Incidentally, India
is continuing to be a constitutionally secular state.
Third Force
Anura Kumara Dissanayake, the Leader of Janatha Vimukthi Perumana is desirous
that JVP emerges as the third alternative political bloc in this country. Bodu Bala Sena
too can vie for this position if it re-engineers its strategic thinking. Besides the
Sinhala people, thousands of muslims and tamils also will rally around the Bodu Bala
Sena if it transforms to a civic nationalistic body shedding its bigotry and xenophobic
attitude. This support the BBS will require because not all Sinhalese will sail with the
BBS.
Muslims are civic nationalists as is evident at the last Presidential election voting for
Maithripala Sirisena when the country was at a crucial juncture. Historically, it has
been proven by the election of former President Premadasa from the Colombo Central
muslim majority seat.

This probably brings home the argument that it is the civic nationalists who are the
patriots of a democratic country irrespective of the race. As citizens of this country let
us all work together to make Sri Lanka one united nation. There are no second class
citizens in Sri Lanka. All are equal. Let us cease to pretend being pseudo-patriots and
pseudo-nationalists. We will live to the spirit of the word Deshappremi.

Posted by Thavam