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 assimilation 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 identity with their community - ethnic, 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'....
Which of the following can be considered a process that strengthens nation-building?
Answer & explanation
Correct answer: option 2
The correct answer is Option (2) → Accommodating differences within both private and public domain
Option (1) Assimilating differences in all domains — Incorrect. Assimilation persuades, encourages or forces all citizens to adopt one uniform set of cultural values, usually those of the dominant group. Suppressing cultural diversity in this way is costly: it alienates the minority communities whose culture is treated as ‘non-national’, and so weakens the nation.
Option (2) Accommodating differences within both private and public domain — Correct. India shows that it is possible to have a strong nation-state without having to ‘homogenise’ different community identities into one standard type: religion, language and other such factors are not banished from the public sphere. National cohesion does not require the imposition of a single identity; successful strategies to build ‘state-nations’ accommodate diversity constructively through policies of cultural recognition, and so win the loyalty of all groups.
Option (3) Integrating differences in public domain but allowing differences in private — Incorrect. This is the integrationist policy: public culture is restricted to a common national pattern, and all ‘non-national’ cultures are relegated to the private sphere. Here too there is the danger of the dominant group’s culture being treated as the national culture, so the other groups feel shut out of public life.
Option (4) Maintaining distinctions of populations and encouraging identity politics — Incorrect. Accommodation means giving each group a fair place within one nation. Encouraging identity politics does the reverse: it sets groups against each other, the very social fragmentation that states fear, instead of building trust and support across groups.
NCERT (2025-26): “Communities, Nations and Nation-States … However, there are many successful examples – including India – which show that it is perfectly possible to have a strong nation‑state without having to ‘homogenise’ different types of community identities into one standard type. Box 6.1 speaks of ‘assimilationist’ and ‘integrationist’ policies. Policies that promote assimilation are aimed at persuading, encouraging or forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform set of cultural values and norms. These values and norms are usually entirely or largely those of the dominant social group. Other, non-dominant or subordinated groups in society are expected or required to give up their own cultural values and adopt the prescribed ones. Policies promoting integration are different in style but not in overall objective: they insist that the public culture be restricted to a common national pattern, while all ‘non-national’ cultures are to be relegated to the private sphere. In this case too, there is the danger of the dominant group’s culture being treated as ‘national’ culture.…” “…From its very beginning the independent Indian state has ruled out an assimilationist model. However, the demand for such a model has been expressed by some sections of the dominant Hindu community. Although ‘national integration’ is a constant theme in state policy, India has not been ‘integrationist’ in the way that Box 6.1 describes. The Constitution declares the state to be a secular state, but religion, language and other such factors are not banished from the public sphere.…” |