Junaid Rehman Shaikh

Minorities is fate no one wants, Can nationalism be really inclusive? History bears testimony to the fact that minorities have always been subjected to biased and partial treatment in every sphere of life. Their distinctiveness based on race, color, creed, ethnicity or even religion makes them fall prey to those who enjoy the perks of being majority. Discrimination on every walk of life against minorities becomes common place and they are faced with hurdles of severe kind. For this reason being a minority is the least desired fate. Moreover, the partial attitude by majorities against minority groups does not simply end here. It brings with it the scourge of marginalization of minorities. This treatment in turn begets the feelings deprivation among the people who are a minority anywhere in the world and gives impetus to notions of separate identity, love for fellow man, loyalty with the group being marginalized. And these are always enough reasons to keep people knit-together for a common cause and instills among them a feeling of nationalism. When the feeling of nationalism flourishes, people tend to be more assertive; they start mouthing their concerns about the inherent and inalienable right of self-determination, recognition and other basic rights on equal footing with other majority groups and in the extreme form they take pride in being a race that is dintinct from the greater whole of majority. Ironically, such parity in dispensation of rights between majority and minority groups has never become possible over the course of history. The escalating difference become so fierce that acceptance of one another despite many commonalities become impossible so much so that the idea of inclusive nationalism ceases to exist. By casting a glance over the course of history, it becomes evident that seeds of nationalism usually emerge from the discrimination of minority groups either on the racial grounds, social nonacceptance, religious intolerance, ethnic differences or even conflicting political and economical differences. The embryonic nationalism after attaining maturity ends up with acquisition of a national identity and a sovereign state. This point in the process is clear manifestation of the idea that nationalism can not essentially be inclusive. To begin with, the example of United States of America and its checkered history seem to be most relevant to quote here. From a pool of proprietary colonies to the formation of a great nation, the people of United States have faced discrimination of every kind. In its formative era of colonies, it was religious persecution of people in England and other parts of Europe which led to the mass scale migration of people towards the new found land. When the people in Europe found it impossible to assimilate the burgeoning differences in their system of belief, they made it a central element which would now keep them knit-together as a separate entity in the new world.This rudimentary feeling of distinctiveness evolved over the years and with the turn of events brought about a separate and distinct American character first and nationalism second, which would be non inclusive of the values they previously cherished and shared within Europe and with their colonial lords. Consequently, when their assertiveness as separate nation was not accepted and instead exploited politically and economically; the Americans revolted against their colonizers. No more did they share any nationalistic sentiment, which could keep them bound together as one nation. The differences became irreconcilable, nationalism was no more inclusive for either and reluctantly the United States of America came into being in 1776 as separate and distinct nation. Having witnessed such a drastic change in the map of the world, minorities elsewhere got a lesson to learn from American independacne. Attaining equal status with majorities and acquiring their basic rights, which once was percieved to be elusive, started to seem attainable now.