(Estimated Pub Date) the Challenge of Ethnic Conflict to National and International Order in the 1990S: Geographic Perspectives- October 1995

Approved for Release: 2018/06/01 C00123268
Evolving Ethnicity in South Asia
With Particular Reference to India
Joseph E. Schwartzberg
Professor of Geography
University of Minnesota
Introduction
The following survey of evolving South Asian ethnic-
ity generally supports the position of Paul Brass
(1991, p. 8), who asserts that:
. . . ethnicity and nationalism are not ‘givens' but are
social and political constructions. They are creations
of elites, who draw upon, distort, and sometimes fab-
ricate materials from the cultures of the groups they
wish to represent in order to protect their well-being
or existence or to gain political and economic advan-
tage for their groups, as well as for themselves.
[Further] ethnicity and nationalism are modern phe-
nomena inseparably connected with the modern cen-
tralizing state.
I would attach more importance than Brass does, how-
ever, to the so-called primordial loyalties that inhere
in one’s birth. While these may not be immutable giv-
ens, they do represent a reservoir of cultural identifiers
from which elites can draw as they assess specific
political situations and make a calculus of the costs
and benefits of seeking to elicit particular types of
support. Among these identifiers are caste, religion,
sect (which may be locally important, but which I can-
not explore in this brief paper), language, dialect (also
not discussed), and regional loyalty. Birth within a
particular group does matter. Cultural nonns may be
plastic, but they are not putty, to be molded at will.
They are potent and they tend to endure. Hence, politi-
cians can go only so far in reshaping ethnic identities.
I would also stress more than Brass and other political
commentators do the importance of geographic are-
nas. I repeatedly refer in this paper to changes in polit-
ical boundaries and show that the political actors
thrown together within the administrative limits of
any newly reconfigured country or state adjust their
ethnic agendas accordingly. They base them not only
on their own social and economic interests seen in iso-
lation but also on their perceptions of the interests of
others in the same arena with whom they must com-
pete for limited political assets. Ethnic groups have
sought to advance their interests by a wide variety of
means. These include the formation and support of
political parties and other organizations; selective sup-
port for nonethnic political parties and sympathetic
candidates; discriminatory legislation when an ethnic
group controls the government at a particular level;
and, when the group is out of power, propaganda,
strikes, demonstrations, economic boycotts, and so
forth. Groups may also deliberately resort to the use of
force, even to the point of large-scale insurrection.
More often, however, violence occurs when confron-
tations with other groups or with the government get
out of control. Violence has, in fact, at times marked
virtually every type of ethnic movement discussed in
this paper and has repeatedly affected every major
region and virtually every state of India, as well as the
other countries of South Asia (figure 9).
The Government of India has responded to the politi-
cal demands of ethnic groups in ways no less varied
than those used by the groups themselves. On numer-
ous occasions, as in regard to state reorganization and
the demand for quotas, it has bowed to organized pub-
lic pressures. At the other extreme, it has often
resorted to the use of substantial force, especially in
dealing with secessionist movements in its border
regions, whether they be of tribals in the northeast or
Sikhs or Kashmiris in the northwest. Between these
extremes, numerous options existed. At times the gov-
ernment successfully co-opted the leadership of spe-
cific groups, made expedient compromises with them,
or acquiesced in their control over local polities, pro-
vided they did not transcend certain limits. Alterna-
tively, the central government has used its substantial
control over fiscal resources and other economic
levers to gain favor or punish dissent; it has also inter-
fered in numerous ways in local politics—-a cause of
particular alienation in the case of Kashmir-declan
ing certain groups and activities illegal, jailing dissi-
dents, and frequently suspending the elected
130
Approved for Release: 2018/06/01 C00123268