1

Political science is one of the most ancient disciplines. At the ancient time, when
tribal people lived in clan, there was also political science. It was originated in
ancient Greece when there was direct democracy. Aristotle is considered as the
first political scientist. Moreover, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle are one of the greatest
political scientists. The first Chair in History and Political Science was at
Columbia University in New York in 1857. The first institutions and departments
with the name ‘political science’ in their titles were the Ecole Libre des Sciences
Politiques in Paris in 1871, the School of Political Science at Columbia University
in 1880. And the first professional association of political scientists was the
American Political Science Association in 1903. After the world war-II, political
science increased dramatically.
Definition of Political Science:
The term ‘politics’, is derived from the Greek word ‘Polis’, which means the city
state According to Greek Philosophers, Politics was a subject which dealt with
all the activities and affairs of the city state. Their City States were known as
‘Polis’. City state was an all-inclusive term, as the ancient Greeks made no
distinction between the state and the Government on one hand, and State and
Society on the other. They never differentiated between personal life and social
life. Hence according to them Politics was a total study of man, society, state,
morality and so on.
Traditionally Political science is a science of state. R.G. Getlel defined “Political
Science as a study of state in the past, present and future and of Political
institutions and Political theories”. J.W.Garner States, “Political Science begins
and ends with the state”
The Oxford English Dictionary defines Political Science as “the study of the state
and systems of government.”
Paul Janet writes “Political Science is concerned with the foundations of the state
and principles of government.”
According to Peter B. Harris “The Modern emphasis in the study of Politics is
laid on disagreements and reconciliation or resolution of these disagreement.
However, it can be said that political science is a systematic study of the State,
Government, Political institutions, Power, influence and authority, Political
processes, and Political forces.
Nature
Politics according to Aristotle and other thinkers is as old as human civilization
and its importance could be gauged from the fact that it touches every aspect of
 2

human life, be it economy, culture, social relations, or ethical norms. Therefore,

one pertinent question which comes to mind is what politics means and what
comprise its nature and scope. The following sections deal with these queries.

The meaning of politics has varied with time and place. While in Greece and India
it was associated with ethics and conceived in theological terms during the
medieval ages it was Machiavelli in the west and Kautilya in India who gave
realistic orientation to politics. Political Science, is therefore, defined as the
science of the state encompassing the government and organization and theory
and practice of the state. This is a traditional view of Political Science supported
by thinkers like R G Gettel, J W Garner, Bluntschli, Paul Janet, George Catlin,
Hans Eulan and many others. However, this is a very narrow definition of
Political Science as within the state there are other institutions and organizations
like NGO’s and trade Unions which though informal have bearings on public
policies and individual lives. Thus, modern political thinkers like Laswell and
Robert Dahl have defined politics in terms of power, authority, and influence.
Laswell and Kaplan have therefore defined Political Science as the “study of
shaping and sharing of power” which has shifted the focus from the mere study
of structures and institutions to the study of actions and processes. A more recent
definition of Political Science by Miller and Peter B Haris has defined it as the
study of conflict resolution. According to Haris, “the modern emphasis in the
study of politics is laid on disagreements and reconciliation or resolution of these
disagreements”. From the above discussion it could be culled out that the
definition of Political Science has changed according to the changed
circumstances and the changing perception of the scholars of the discipline.
Roughly speaking these definitions could be grouped into traditional and modern
approaches to political science. While traditional approach has defined political
science as the study of state, government and formal institutions laying emphasis
on the study of formal legal structures and theoretical part, the modern approach
has emphasized on the study of what is actually happening in the state; various
forces, processes and informal structures operating within the state.

Another debate which has dominated the modern approach to political science
has been as to whether political science could be placed under the ambit of pure
science? With the rise of Political Science as a distinct discipline, Political Theory
was made one of its subfields. Political Science is concerned with describing and
explaining the realities of political behavior, generalizations about men and
political institutions on empirical evidence and the role of power in the society.
Political theory, on the other hand, is not only concerned with the behavioral
study of political phenomena empirically but also prescribes the goals which
 3

states, governments, societies, and citizens ought to pursue. Therefore, it is being

questioned as to whether the discipline of political science could be described as
pure science and various explanations have been put both for and against it.

Unlike natural science, political science lacks consensus among scholars

regarding its definition, nature, and terminology. Also, its principles can’t be
allied universally as they lack precision and clarity like the principles of natural
science where two plus two is always equal to four. This is because political
science deals with human beings whose actions are unpredictable and not liable
to laboratory experimentation. Therefore, a middle approach in political science
emerged in the form of post-behaviouralism and political science came to be
regarded as both science and art. Robert Dahl states, “political science is both
science and art. Whenever students of political science test their theories against
the data of experience by observation, the political analysis can be regarded as
scientific. When this political analysis is applied for the working of political
institution it is art.

Scope

The scope of political science refers to its subject matter. There has been
tremendous increase in the number of issues which is now being analyzed under
the realm of Political Science. There are discussions on the theories of state
origin, sovereignty, law, liberty, rights, forms and organs of government,
representation, state functions, political parties, pressure groups, public opinion,
and ideologies such as capitalism, socialism, communism etc., international
relations and institutions.

The international Political Science Association meet in Paris in 1948 classified

the scope of Political Science into four zones: political theory, political
institution, political dynamics and international relations. Political theory deals
with the fundamental concepts of political science like state, government, justice,
liberty, equality, law, sovereignty, separation of power, modes of representation,
forms of government, grounds of political obligation and various ideologies.
Political philosophy takes a theoretical and speculative overview of these
fundamental concepts. Political institution is concerned with the study of formal
political institutions like the state and the government, the legislature, the
executive, the judiciary, the electorate and the administration. Political dynamics
refers to the forces and processes which operate within the government and
politics such as political parties, pressure groups, interest groups, lobbies, public
opinion, propaganda etc.
 4

Apart from these four zones political science also deals with three other areas
which are public administration, international relations and international law and
relations between the state and the individual. Public administration deals with
the organization, control and coordination of administrative machinery, personnel
administration, financial administration, public relations, management,
administrative law, and adjudication etc. It also covers the study of local self-
governing institutions like corporations, municipalities, and Panchayati Raj
institutions.

Conclusion

Therefore, broadly speaking Political Science deals with two sorts of topics, one
which is based on empirical facts and the other which is value based. However,
both traditional and empirical methods have their limitations. Therefore, a third
kind of approach which is basically a combination of the traditional and empirical
approach have emerged which is basically prescriptive in nature and seeks to
bridge the gap between what is and what ought to be. For example, proposals for
political reform such as anti-defection measures and prescriptions for improving
the political system like parliamentary versus presidential form of government
are generally based on normative considerations. At the same time these also
involve examination and evaluation of factual data. Discussions with such an
evaluative overtone can be called as prescriptive. All the above discussions
together constitute the scope of political science
 1

Power
Politics of power is, for many, the most complex understanding of politics
because power itself is intangible — we cannot touch or see it — we can only
feel its effects. And yet to say that power does not exist because we cannot touch
or see it would clearly be wrong, and so we are left trying to understand it through
different conceptualizations.
The concept of power is complex and dynamic. Political science deals with
power. Political system stands in power and Power is one of the most important
concepts in political science. For centuries, philosophers, politicians, and social
scientists have explored and commented on the nature of power. Pittacus (c. 640–
568 B.C.E.) opined, “The measure of a man is what he does with power,” and
Lord Acton perhaps more famously asserted, “Power tends to corrupt; absolute
power corrupts absolutely” (1887). Indeed, the concept of power can have
decidedly negative connotations, and the term itself is difficult to define.
Many scholars adopt the definition developed by German sociologist Max Weber,
who said that power is the ability to exercise one’s will over others (Weber
1922).
Raphael says that in French there is a word “Pouvoir”. In Latin “Potestas” is
commonly used. Both these words (these are verbs) mean “to be able”. He
defined, “The ability to make other people do what one wants them to do”.
Celebrated sociologist Anthony Giddens (1997) sees, ‘power as the ability to
make a difference, to change things from what they would otherwise have been,
as he puts it “transformative” capacity’.

Talcott Parsons defined Power is a ‘mechanism operating to bring about change

in the process of social interaction’

We can define power in easy way that, “Power is the ability to influence
others/someone/decision/event.” Authority is the legitimate power.

Characteristics of Power
The first characteristic of power is that power is relative. Power does not exist
in a vacuum. To have power, we must have another entity to compare or exert
that power against. When we call state A powerful, we need to compare it with
characteristics and attributes of another state to determine if our claim is true.
Another characteristic of power is that power is primarily a means and not an
end. In other words, power is capital that is meant to be used. We do not amass
power just to have it; we amass power with the intent of using it. Another
 2

characteristic of power is power is perception. What we mean by power is

perception is that a state's power is also determined by how powerful other states
perceive that state to be. For example, many people claim that President Bush's
foray into Iraq has diminished the perception of the United State's standing in
the world. This diminished perception may lead to the inability to positively
influence future international relationships. Power being multidimensional is
the last characteristic we will be looking at. What this means is that there are
several ways a state can exert power. These means may be militaristic,
economic, or psychological.
Types of Power
There are four types of power: force, persuasion, manipulation, and exchange.

Force: Force involves physical activeness. Although many often equate the
word force with violence, force as a power can also be non-violent. Violent force
would be things such as using war as a means to influence a relationship. We
can look to the whole of human history to provide us with ample examples of
the use of violent physical force in the form of war. For instance, the United
States recent military incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq would be examples
of a state using force to influence change. Power can also take the form of Non-
violent force, such as boycotts, embargos, blockades, and/or protests as a means
to effect change in a relationship. An example of non-violent force would be the
Civil Rights movement in the United States during the 1960's. The African
American community of the time was able to influence positive change with the
use of non-violent demonstrations and boycotts. We also see the use of non-
violent force Gandhi's non-violent movement to liberate India from the British
Empire.

Persuasion: Power can also exist in the form of persuasion. Persuasion occurs
when an agent uses reason to convince or prevent another agent from something
they would choose under their own volition. Persuasion is a nonphysical type of
power which influences others by acts, works, or through other activities such
as writings, events, Lobbying, speechmaking, debating, writing letters, issuing
position papers, making proclamations in the form of court decisions, executive
orders, laws, and policies with clear objector well stated purposes. Persuasion is
a major part of politics. Another important aspect of persuasion is that the "other"
agent would be aware that you were trying to persuade them with reason. In
each instance, an agent spells out its will with the intention of producing a
response in compliance with that will from other agents. Persuasion, like other
types of power, may fail, but when it works it can be an impetus to political and
social change. Another hypothetical example of persuasion would be a state's
ability to convince another state, through reason, that it is not in that state's best
interest to invade another country, or to institute a policy of aggression toward
 3

other states. Nonviolence ensures physical activeness and persuasion ensures

influence/result/purpose/intention.

Shirin Ebadi understands such power. In 2003, she was awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize for her ability to use language in such a manner as to prompt people to
rethink political and legal boundaries. Ebadi’s adult life has been devoted to the
cause of using persuasion to work for human rights in her home country of Iran.
A lawyer, teacher, judge, and writer, she has used persuasion to uphold the rights
of women, children, and political prisoners. She has also argued the case that
Islam, human rights, and democracy are compatible and reinforcing ethical
perspectives.

Public service campaigns that urge people to recycle or quit smoking are great
examples of persuasion used to improve people’s lives.

Manipulation: Power also exists in the form of manipulation. Manipulation

occurs when an acting agent uses deceit to influence the actions of another
agent. It is also important to note that the acting agent does not make aware to
the other agent that this form of power is being used on them. Here the purpose
is not clear and its secret. Generally, social scientists who study power relations
note that manipulation power is very difficult to oppose because of its cloaked
quality. An example of manipulation would be, hypothetically, if the United
States were to convince a number of other states that invading a sovereign state
(we will refer to it as state A) was necessary because of state A's hidden weapons
capabilities and desire to use those weapons. In this example we would see
manipulation if the United States knew that state A did not have the weapons
that the United States claimed they had, but still used this argument as a means
of convincing the other states to collaborate with an invasion of state A.

The 2016 US election could be an example of this power. Various polls in the
2016 US election showed that Hillary Clinton was far ahead of Donald Trump,
so Hillary Clinton reduced her campaign and Donald Trump increased her
campaign, which later led to his` winning the election.

Was James Baker using manipulation when he tried to kill fellow Republican Dan
Quayle’s nomination for vice president in 1988 by leaking news of Quayle’s
impending nomination, hoping that, when word got out, a backlash against
Quayle would sink his chances of being George Bush’s running mate?25 The fact
that Baker used an indirect, hidden method (a leak to the press)—rather than
simply trying to go public and openly persuade people to oppose Quayle—
suggests manipulation. Was Clinton using manipulation in the 1992 election
when, on the advice of his campaign staff, he started emphasizing the merits of
hard work in his speeches? His staff told him that such a message played well
with the voters and could boost his popularity, but Clinton did not begin his
 4

subsequent speeches by saying, ‘‘I’m going to talk about working hard because
I’m told by the experts that doing so may make you want to vote for me.’’ Indeed,
listeners heard the language of the work ethic, not the language of power
politics.26 The existence of two layers of language and the suggestion of motives
beyond those revealed to his audiences implies indirection and cloaked motives.
Politicians are so adept at this power that members of some professions, most
notably journalism, have outlined steps for trying to identify manipulation efforts
when they are occurring to prevent being ‘‘overpowered’’ by them.

Exchange power: When we speak of the power of exchange, we speak of the

ability to affect a relationship with exchange. A hypothetical example of
exchange as power would be if state A wanted to create a nuclear weapons
program but state B offered economic incentives for state A to not create a
nuclear weapons program. This exchange of economic incentives to deter
someone from something that they would do under their own volition is the
power of exchange.

In international politics, one finds numerous instances of exchange as a preferred

means of power. The U.S. government’s policy of extending economic assistance
to Colombian cocoa growers who agree to make a different crop choice is a
notable example, as is a recent United Nations policy to give cash to Afghan
poppy farmers who avow to substitute poppy with another non–drug related crop.
In both the Colombian and Afghan cases, it is clear that the international war on
drugs has included exchange as part of its arsenal of weapons.

Exchange power can be used as a mechanism to initiate, cement, or restore

relationships. It is the last that is most impressive and probably of greatest use in
intractable conflict. Exchange power, while not the primary form of power, is a
potent tool for both negotiators and interveners. When adversaries have control
over resources of value to their counterparts, trades of such resources can not only
serve as the basis of agreements; they can also provide the foundation for
improved relations in the future.
 1

State
States were first created many thousands of years ago, mainly to fight wars and
defend territory. In 21st Century, State is ever were. It is touching, directly or
indirectly, all aspects of human existence and life. It has become omnipotent. This
was not the case a few centuries age. Back then state had limited role. It was
primarily concerned with (i) law and order and (ii) revenue collection. From this
very small role to today’s all-pervading role, the role of state has been expanding.

Definition: State comes from the Latin word ‘status’, meaning "condition of a
country". It was Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) who first used the term " state"
in his writings. In 4th century B.C. Aristotle had defined state, “state is a union
of families and villages having for its end a perfect and self-sufficing life, by
which we mean a happy and honorable life.”

Dr. J.W.Garner, “As a concept of Political Science, the State is a community of

persons more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of
territory, independent or nearly so, of external control and possessing an
organized government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual
obedience.”

Above all we can say, the state is a concept of Political Science and a moral reality
which exists where a number of people, living on a definite territory, are unified
under a government which in internal matters is the organ for expressing their
sovereignty, and in external matters is independent of other governments.

Elements of the State: - The essential elements of the state are thus: first, a
number of people, or population; second, a definite place of residence, or
territory; third, an organization Unifying the people, or government; and fourth,
supremacy in internal matters and independence of external control, or
sovereignty.
Population

Sovereignty
State Territory

Goverbment

Figure: Elements of the state

 2

Population- State is a community of persons. It is a human political institution.

Without a population there can be no State. Population can be more or less, but it
has to be there. There are States with very small populations like Switzerland,
Canada and others, and there are States like China, India, and others, with very
large populations.The people living in the State are the citizens of the State. They
enjoy rights and freedom as citizens as well as perform several duties towards the
State. When citizens of another State are living in the territory of the State, they
are called aliens. All the persons, citizens as well as aliens, who are living in the
territory of the State are duty bound to obey the state laws and policies. The State
exercises supreme authority over them through its government.

There is no definite limit for the size of population essential for a State. But it is
recognized that the population should be neither too large nor very small. It
should be determined on the basis of the size of the territory of the State, the
available resources, the standard of living expected and needs of defense,
production of goods and supplies.

Territory- Territory is the second essential element of the State. State is a

territorial unit. Definite territory is its essential component. A State cannot exist
in the air or at sea. The size of the territory of a state can be big or small;
nevertheless, it has to be a definite, well-marked portion of territory.

Further, it must be noted that the territory of the state includes not only the land
but also, rivers, lakes, canals inland seas if any, a portion of coastal sea, territorial
waters or maritime belt, continental shelf, mountains, hills, and all other land
features along with the air space above the territory.

The territory of the state can also include some islands located in the sea. For
example, Andaman & Nicobar and Daman and Diu are parts of India. State
exercises sovereignty over all parts of its territory. Ships of the State are its
floating parts and Aero planes are its flying parts. Even a States can lease out its
territory to another State e.g., India has given on lease the Teen Bigha corridor to
Bangladesh.

Government is that agency which steers the ship of the State. Without
government, state will be directionless. Here the form of government does not
matter. It may have a monarchy like Bhutan or republic as in India. It may have
a parliamentary form of government like Bangladesh, India and Great Britain or
a presidential form of government as in the USA, one party rule or even
dictatorship, there has to be a government. In other words, government is nothing
 3

but the implementing arm of state. Government is that system through which state
expresses its will. The government makes law, punishes law breakers, promotes
welfare of people.

Sovereignty- A people inhabiting a definite portion of territory and having a

government do not constitute a state so long as they do not possess sovereignty.
Bangladesh before 26th March 1971 had all the other elements of the state but it
lacked sovereignty and therefore it was not a State. Sovereignty is the supreme
power by which the state commands and exerts political obedience from its
people. A state must be internally supreme and free from external control. Thus,
sovereignty has two aspects, internal and external. Internal sovereignty is the
state’s monopoly of authority inside its boundaries. This authority cannot be
shared with any other state. The state is independent and its will is unaffected by
the will of any other external authority.

Therefore, every state must have a population, a definite territory, a duly

established government, and sovereignty. The absence of any of these elements
deprives it the status of statehood.

States: State formation, development, and Change.

The United States and more than 190 other states comprise the international
community. Many of the world’s existing states are new. In fact, fewer than 30
states now in existence were independent states possessing their own governing
systems over a unified territory in 1800. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and
many other Latin American countries established self-governing states in the
nineteenth century after gaining independence from Spain and Portugal. After
World War II, many new states (whose populations and territories were
previously under the jurisdiction of separate colonial states) were created in
Africa and Asia. For example, Madagascar, a long-time colony of France, became
an independent state in 1960, the same year in which Nigeria gained
independence from Britain. The disintegration of the Soviet Union,
Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia resulted in the formation of more than 20 new
states within the regions previously occupied by only three.

As we can see from these examples, states come and go. In addition, even the
oldest of existing states evolve and undergo remarkable changes. Turkey, for
example, was previously known as the Ottoman Empire and governed a vast
region, including the territories now occupied by Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan,
Israel, and Saudi Arabia. After defeat in World War I, its territory shrank, and its
state organization was transformed from a sultanate to a republic. Japan’s state
 4

has evolved through transformations from administration by shoguns (military

elites), rule by a divine emperor, and, since 1947, government through
constitutional democracy. Germany, established as an independent and unified
state in 1871, has been an empire, a democracy, a Nazi totalitarian regime, a
territory divided into rival states of democracy and communism, and a unified
democratic state again all in slightly more than 100 years.

The history of U.S. development as a state has been, similarly, a narrative of

dramatic changes in organization and jurisdiction. Since its establishment as an
independent state in the late eighteenth century, the U.S. state has been confronted
by a civil war in which much of the population rejected the power of the U.S.
state altogether, in which approximately one-third of all free adult males were
mobilized to fight, and in which more than 600,000 people died. The U.S. state
has experienced violent opposition manifest in the assassinations of four heads of
state since 1865 and the attempted assassinations of others, including Presidents
Truman, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton. In addition, the United States has radically
enlarged its original territory of 13 states to include 50 states plus the District of
Columbia. It has also evolved from a relatively limited state apparatus with
meager funds into a state that by the time of the administration of Franklin D.
Roosevelt in the 1930s had grown so much that it was spending $1 million per
hour. All this has happened in just over 200 years of state development. As noted
in the Introduction, change seems to be the essence of politics. State policy can
be influenced by different stakeholders. But state is the supreme organization,
and it works for its citizen.
 1

Nation and Nationalism

The term 'nation' is derived from the Latin word 'Natio'. 'Natio' means birth or
blood relationship and, by implication. Nation, in the modern political sense, is a
community of individuals who are linked socially and economically, share a
common behave, language, attributes, culture, religion, ethnicity, race, and/or
culture are often the foundations of national, even if they differ about aspects of
this past. The community has a common vision of the future and believes that this
future will be better if they remain united than if they separate - even if some
aspire to change the social organization of the nation and its political system, the
State.

Burges has stressed blood relationship and defined nation as population of an

ethnic unity inhabiting definite a territory or geographical area."

According to Barker, "a nation is a body of persons inhabiting a definite territory

and thus united together by the primary fact of living together on a command
land."

Ramsay Muir says that "a nation is a body of people who feel themselves to be
nationally linked together by certain affinities and cannot tolerate subjection to
others."

R. N. Gilchrist has observed that "Nation is very near in meaning to state; the
former has a broader signification. It is the state plus something else; the state
looked at from a certain point of view, viz. that of the unity of the people
organized in one state."

Nationalism is the sentiment of considering the nation to which one belongs, for
one reason or another, better than other nations and thus, to have more rights.
Extreme manifestations of this sentiment are xenophobia, racism, and imperial
arrogance. Nationalism is also the desire for affirmation and political
independence before an oppressive foreign state. When the State has already
become independent, it is the desire to assure within the territory better treatment
from the State, or at least treatment equal issued to foreigners, whether
individuals or entities. The significant nationalist movements from a political
perspective - the simplest historic manifestations of which stem from ethnic,
linguistic identification or to belonging in the past to a political organization -
have as their principal objective the establishment of a State or the modification
of the policies of the State to defend the interests of those in the movement. Some
of the examples of the nationalisms are gay nationalism, African American
nationalism, etc.
 2

Nations and States: Relations and interactions: Nations may or may not
possess their own states. National identity, or nationalism, may precede the
emergence of a nation’s state. Zionism (Jewish nationalism) and a community of
people identifying with a Jewish nation, for example, existed before the creation
of the state of Israel in 1948. Zionist arguments were advanced through the works
of nationalist leaders such as Theodor Herzl (1860–1904), Chaim Weizmann
(1874–1952), and Israel Zangwill (1864–1926). The efforts of these and other
pre-1948 Zionist leaders attest to the importance of maintaining the distinction
between nations and states. Nations may be growing and defining themselves as
such long before they gain their own states.

Moreover, national identity may exist even though a nation lives within the
territory of a separate state rather than within the borders of a state conforming to
the nation. This describes the situation of many French residents in the Canadian
province of Quebec, according to their nationalist leaders. French-speaking
Canadians, like their English counterparts, are under the authority of the state of
Canada. However, many French-Canadians feel a sense of national identity based
on a shared language and culture. Nationalist pressures prompted the passage of
the Charter of the French Language (1977), which made French the official
language of Quebec. Nationalist sentiment culminated in demands for the
separation of Quebec from the state of Canada and the creation of a sovereign
Quebec republic. In 1980, nationalists tried but failed to win separation from
Canada by means of a referendum. In 1994, Jacques Parizeau was elected premier
of Quebec, in part because of his promise to support another referendum calling
for Quebec’s separation and independence. The referendum, held in October
1995, failed to pass by the slimmest of margins (50.56 percent of voters opposed
the separation and 49.44 percent supported separation). For now, the French-
Canadian nation exists without its own sovereign state (an independent Quebec)
and within the territory of a separate sovereign state (Canada) whose legitimacy
it rejects.

Although nationalist pressures failed to alter the borders of the Canadian state,
such pressures contributed to the redrawing and eventual dismantling of
Yugoslavia’s borders in recent decades. Yugoslavia was formed in 1918; its
territory came primarily out of regions of the former Ottoman Empire and
Austria-Hungary. From the beginning, Yugoslavia was potentially unstable
because of the presence of rival nationalist groups. Serbs accounted for 36 percent
of the population, whereas Croats represented 20 percent. Smaller groups
included Muslims, Slovenes, Macedonians, Albanians, and Montenegrins.
During the tenure of leader Josip Broz (Tito), Yugoslavia was organized as a
federation and nationalist tensions were kept to a manageable level. Following
Tito’s death in 1980, nationalist pressures eventually led to the collapse of the
state in regions within its own territory. Specifically, during 1990, a Serb
 3

nationalist, Slobodan Milosevic, won power in the province of Serbia and a

Croatian nationalist, Franjo Tudjman, came to power in Croatia; meanwhile,
Albanian nationalists were demanding greater control in the province of Kosovo.
Divisions soon worsened. Serb nationalists were calling for the creation of a
‘‘Greater Serbia’’ by 1991; Croatia and Slovenia broke away from Yugoslavia
and declared themselves nations in possession of their own sovereign states in
1991; Bosnia Muslims declared themselves independent in 1992; in turn, Serbs
in Croatia and Bosnia declared themselves independent of the newly independent
states that were not dominated by Serbs. ‘‘Ethnic cleansing’’ and civil war fueled
by these nationalist maneuverings culminated in perhaps 200,000 deaths and the
creation of a refugee population in excess of 1 million. The example of
Yugoslavia shows the potential of nationalist movements to force a redrawing of
state borders.

Yet some nations exist without ever demanding the formation of their own states.
For such nations, nationalism becomes a means of affirming a group’s identity
and a basis for demanding respect for a group’s interest. The deaf nation
represents an example of this type of nationalism. How can the deaf be a nation?
Advocates of deaf nationalism and deaf culture say it is obvious: The group is
united by a common language (sign language) through which common customs
and a shared culture are transmitted. Behavioral indicators of the existence of
such customs abound. First, members of this nation see deafness as a trait, not a
disability. The trait is shared among members of the nation (just as being
ethnically Irish is shared by the Irish nation). Second, members of the deaf nation
tend to resist ‘‘cures’’ for their deafness; indeed, potential cures for deafness
(such as hearing implants) are typically viewed as genocidal weapons (just as a
‘‘cure’’ for being Armenian so that Armenians ceased to exist as Armenians
would likely be viewed by Armenians as genocidal). What is the difference
between ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia intended to remove all traces of Bosnian
Muslims and the ethnic cleansing represented by implants that would remove
from the world all vestiges of deafness, they ask? Third, the fact that the deaf
have their own culture is evidenced by their propensity for marrying within their
own group (just as other nations whose members display strong feelings of
nationalism tend to exhibit a preference for intragroup marriages). For the deaf
who view themselves as members of a nation, nationalism has become a means
of expressing group pride and a means of promoting group acceptance, leaders
explain, even though there is no movement for the creation of a separate sovereign
state.

In other instances of state–nation relations, the presence of a state can foster the
development of nationalist sentiments or foster the weakening of nations. In terms
of the former, you can look to the example of the African state of Burundi, which
gained independence from Belgium in 1962. Belgians pursued a ‘‘divide and
 4

conquer’’ policy in Burundi whereby they favored the indigenous Tutsi over the
indigenous Hutus. Belgians promoted racial myths of Tutsi superiority and Hutu
inferiority. Historically, however, the Tutsis and Hutus had not existed as separate
nations; in fact, they intermarried and shared common religions, language, and
customs. Belgium’s colonial policy of creating divisions between the two groups
(as a means of serving its own interests in maintaining colonial dominance over
both) had an enormous impact. Tutsi and Hutus became enemies and began
thinking of themselves as two separate peoples. Since independence,
assassinations, coups, and violence against civilians have threatened to
overwhelm Burundi. In 1961, the prime minister designate was assassinated by
individuals linked to Tutsi nationalists; in 1965, a Hutu prime minister was
assassinated by Tutsis; coup attempts by Hutus and Tutsis followed; a Tutsi
military government was established in 1966; and a Hutu rebellion was launched
in 1972 and massive killings of Hutus followed, and violence swept through both
Burundi and neighboring Rwanda. It is ironic and tragic that these groups, which
previously comprised a common people, split into warring, separatist groups in
response to state (Belgian) policies.

In contrast, the colonial policies of Britain in Nigeria weakened the indigenous

Ibo people, according to Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe. Far from increasing the
strength of identification with the Ibo, British colonists undermined it. Colonists
presented young Ibo members with choices in stark contrast to the traditions of
their people. In his novel Things Fall Apart, Achebe depicts Ibo characters who
want to be like the Europeans, who abandon the indigenous religions and customs
of their nation, and who ultimately render the authority figures of that nation
powerless. The significance of Achebe’s work for our discussion is in its ability
to portray the complexity of state–nation relations. State policies can encourage
indigenous nationalist identities in one context while weakening them in another.

These examples illustrate the diversity of patterns found in present state– nation
relations. Perhaps no pattern is more common than that of multinational states.
For most states, two or more nations exist within the territory over which the state
presides. Mononational states, in which only one nation exists within the territory
of a state, are extremely rare. Indeed, strictly defined, probably no state is
mononational. However, Japan, Denmark, and Norway have been identified by
some political scientists as approximating varying degrees of mono-nationalism.
In contrast to Japan, Denmark, and Norway, multinational states such as India
may have within their territories numerous ethnic, language, and religious groups
with varying degrees of nationalist sentiment. For example, in India, there are
more than 40 language groups and there are thousands of castes (social groups).
Approximately 80 percent of the population is Hindu, 11 percent is Muslim, and
2 percent is Sikh. Sikh nationalists have called for the creation of a sovereign Sikh
state, Khalistan. At times, nationalism has led to violence in Indian politics. Sikh
 5

bodyguards assassinated Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1984, and Tamil

nationalists were linked to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi in 1991. (Tamil
nationalists were angered by India’s support of Sri Lanka’s efforts opposing the
formation of a separate Tamil state.) India represents the challenges facing all
multinational states. Whether expressed violently or peacefully, nationalist
feelings of unity among members of groups attaching significance to a shared
language, religion, ethnicity, and/or cultural tradition may pose difficulties for
state sovereignty and legitimacy. Feelings of nationalism may change, rising or
falling in response to events within or outside a nation. Whatever the case, the
choices made by nations will probably continue to affect the choices available to
states.

India represents the challenges facing all multinational states. Whether expressed
violently or peacefully, nationalist feelings of unity among members of groups
attaching significance to a shared language, religion, ethnicity, and/or cultural
tradition may pose difficulties for state sovereignty and legitimacy. Feelings of
nationalism may change, rising or falling in response to events within or outside
a nation. Whatever the case, the choices made by nations will probably continue
to affect the choices available to states.

Demerit of nation
Nation and nationalism have also some demerits. Such as.
1. It promotes social conflict within the ethnic
2. It also promotes favourism, egoism, and sentimental
3. There is backwardness of traditional socio-economy and political beliefs.
4. It also lacks internal and external sovereignty.
5. This is a big obstacle in the case of globalization

Nationalism can be used to serve humanitarian purposes or antihumanitarian

purposes, they conclude. If they think that they can provide beneficial services to
other nations, then the reputation of their own nation will increase then
nationalism will be in a good level. So, we as a nation and others all nations of
the world can think of the betterment of their own and as well as other nation,
then nationalism will bear a great human development all over the world.