Read the passage and answer the following question.

Historically, states have tried to establish and enhance their political legitimacy through nation- building strategies. They sought to secure... the loyalty and obedience of their citizens through policies of assimilating or integration. Attaining these objectives was not easy, especially in a context of cultural diversity where citizens, in addition to their identifications with their country, might also feel a strong sense of identify with their community-ethic, religious, linguistic and so on. Most states feared that the recognition of such difference would lead to social fragmentation and prevent the creation of a harmonious society. In short, such identity politics was considered a threat to state unity. In addition, accommodating these differences is politically challenging so many states have resorted to either suppressing these diverse identities or ignoring them on the political domain.

Policies of assimilation-often involving outright suppression of the identities of ethnic, religious or linguistic groups-try to erode the cultural differences between groups. Policies of integration seek to assert a single national identity by attempting to eliminate ethno-national and cultural differences from the public and political arena, while allowing them in the private domain. Both sets of policies assume a singular national identity.

Assimilationist and integrationist strategies try to establish singular national identities through various interventions like :

• Centralising all power to forums where the dominant group constitutes a majority, and eliminating the autonomy of local or minority groups.
• Imposing a unified legal and judicial system based on the dominant group's traditions and abolishing alternative systems used by other groups.
• Adopting the dominant group's language as the only official 'national' language and making its use mandatory in all public institutions.
• Promotion of the dominant group's language and culture through national institutions including state-controlled media and educational institutions.
• Adoption of state symbols celebrating the dominant group's history, heroes and culture, reflected in such things as choice of national holidays or naming of streets etc.
• Seizure of lands, forests and fisheries from minority groups and indigenous people and declaring them 'national resources'....

People constituting a nation may actually be citizens or residents of different states. Choose the example that does not support the statement above.

Division of Pakistan in 1971

The correct answer is Option (3) - Division of Pakistan in 1971

The criterion that comes closest to distinguishing a nation is the state. Nations are communities that have a state of their own. That is why the two are joined with a hyphen to form the term nation-state. Generally speaking, in recent times there has been a one-to-one bond between nation and state (one nation, one state; one state, one nation). But this is a new development. It was not true in the past that a single state could represent only one nation, or that every nation must have its own state. For example, when it was in existence, the Soviet Union explicitly recognised that the peoples it governed were of different ‘nations’ and more than one hundred such internal nationalities were recognised. Similarly, people constituting a nation may actually be citizens or residents of different states. For example, there are more Jamaicans living outside Jamaica than in Jamaica – that is, the population of ‘non-resident’ Jamaicans exceeds that of ‘resident’ Jamaicans. A different example is provided by ‘dual citizenship’ laws. These laws allow citizens of a particular state to also – simultaneously – be citizens of another state. Thus, to cite one instance, Jewish Americans may be citizens of Israel as well as the USA; they can even serve in the armed forces of one country without losing their citizenship in the other country.