1: ETHNIC ORGIN OF NATIONS

The main concern of smith is to identify whether the relationship between ethnic identities and
nations are typological or chronological? Was their perhaps ,a causal link between ethnicity and
formation of nations. Large number of people are quite prepared to sacrifice their lives for
recognition of national identities and restoration of their historical lands . and in the same time
several new states which are often top heavy and fragile are anxious to establish their national
credentials, especially when they lack any semblance to common ethnicity, so I think mr. smith
has a point here ,for example even a country like ours which does not have a common ethnicity
had tried hard during independence movement tried to rediscover our submerged and lost
ethnical roots in the mist of immemorial time. Similarly, through Zionist movement the uprooted
and homeless JEWS tried to organise themselves more effectively to feel a sense of common
poltical identity based on ethnicity. Of, course there is much more to the concept of nation than
myths and memories But they constitute a sine qua non: that is there is no identity without
memory (albeit selective), no collective purpose without myth, and identity and purpose or
destiny are necessary elements of the very concept of a nation. And this is where we should read
smith between the lines as it is true with ethnic communities as well as it too must be felt to have
an identity and destiny, and hence myths and memories, at this instance without giving an
outright explanation smith is making us think whether nations are enlarged ethnic communities.
By focusing on these very elements of myth, symbol and memory, he has been able to
encompass what has undoubtedly seemed the most perplexing feature of investigation into ethnic
and national phenomena: the curiously simultaneous solidity and insubstantiality of ethnic
communities and nations. In many ways it is easier to grasp nationalism, the ideological
movement, than nations, the organization of cultures. Even ethnic communities, so easily
recognizable from a distance, seem to dissolve before our eyes the closer we come and the more
we attempt to pin them down. It is tempting to conclude that ethnicity is in the eye of the
beholder, that it is all ‘situational’, a matter of time and context, shifting, fleeting, illusory This is
where it is necessary to take account of the perspective of Smith’s investigation, and that in turn
depends on the problems under consideration.
To sum up, Smith argued that ethnicity is the most influential origin of the nation-states. Smith
based this argument on three main reasons: First of all first nations were formed on the basis of
pre-modern ethnic cores. Therefore “being powerful and culturally influential, they provided
models for subsequent cases of the formation of nations in many parts of the globe”. Secondly,
ethnic model of the nation has become popular because “it sat so easily on the pre-modern
demotic kind of community that had survived into the modern era in so many parts of the world”.
Finally, ethnic unity is a necessary condition for the national survival and unity because it would
be very hard for a community to survive without a coherent mythology, symbolism of history
and culture.
JONATHAN SPENCER: WRITING WITHIN
Spencer focuses mainly on how history was used to power and grow Sinhalese nationalism. We
can say that spencer correctly identifies the fact that it is disillusionment among masses that
creates an urge to look back to history to revive pride and authority. Spencer rightly identifies
how literature blends with agriculture to form the basis of an ethnic culture. This is highlighted
by how wickramasinghe’s works fuelled the tank irrigation based rice cultivation in srilanka. The
irrigated tanks captured the popular memory of Sinhalese masses and it became the ethnic core
of Sinhalese nationalism. We can identify deep similarities of Sinhala history interpretation with
Hindutva history. Both asks for purity and unwavering nationalism based on the idea of a golden
past. Another elemant we can find common is the existence of an invader or a common
enemy ,in INDIA it is ISLAM and in lanka it is TAMILS. We can assert basically that history
was used for emotional upheavel and sentiments of superiority.another think that I want to add is
that Sinhalese nationalism survives mainly on fear and not on fearlessness, the about a tiny
minority
Thus my conclusion is that the very idea of modern nations being modern is idiotic and they are
modern only because they exist in our time period.
MAHMOODMADANI: THE POLITICS OF NAMING ; GENOCIDE ,CIVILWAR ,
INSURGENCY.
This article should be read with two questions in mind, who is being named and who
names. The author compares and contrast the divergent public outlook towards almost similar
occurances in IRAQ and DARFUR. One thing the author is trying to ridicule is the world police
mentality of West in general and USA in particular. the mess left over by US invasion in Iraq
created a collosal human catastrophe there but that was conveniently brushed under the carpet
and at the same time the Darfur tragedy caused by non west actors was clubbed as genocide.
Here I would wish to invite your attention to the author’s second question,who names? It is the
powerfull who takes and breaks descisions. Others have no say on that. The morality ormaybe
the moral bankruptcy of both citizens and governments in the west is highlightes by the
statement that “it is the same people who say out from IRAQ and into DARFUR”
My personal take is that it is a manifestation of accumulated resentment in the global south
against the high handedness of west. Revolt against the imposition of ones morality and system
over others. So concludingly I think instead of invasion and imposition the west should help the
global south to evolve organically as a society,and as the author wants stop taking prejudiced
stands.

GIULIA PINES,THE CONTENTIOUS HISTORY OF PASSPORT

Th e author tries to point out the double edged nature of passports worldwide. She tries to
provide a historical context about the evolution of passports and the way it became an enabler
and a constrain. Depending on our country of origin, a passport may grant us extreme privilege
or extreme distress. It may be a sheltering sky or a burden to bear. The author further tires to
even the challenge our basic notions of citizenship by stating the condition of 10 million stateless
refugees, who won’t get any passports and would eventually be denied the fundamental right of
freedom of movement. the idea of a worldwide passport standard emerged in the aftermath of the
First World War, championed by the League of Nations perhaps recognizing a political
opportunity, the U.S. passed the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and later, the Immigration Act of
1924 limiting the inflow of immigrants. The emergency? Too many newcomers from countries
deemed a threat to “the ideal of American hegemony.” How to identify an immigrant’s country of
origin? By a newly minted passport, of course.thus basically the author is trying to establish the
fact that passport in many ways is becoming a marker for identifying ethnicity place of orgin etc
and thereby acting as a constrain for people from poor nations ,further fuelling closed borders
and destroying the idea of universal citizens. I wish to make a comparison of passports and the
set of markers it brings to INDIA’S caste system, like in caste system the people from privileged
nations find their passports as a marker of superiority and pride while like lower caste people
people from weak nations consider it as something shamefull The passport isn’t going anywhere,
but the carefully thought-out precautions meant to shape it over a period of decades into a near-
perfect document must now evolve as our world changes