Is liberty only possible in a nation-state? (original) (raw)

We were slaves of the English, now we will be slaves of the educated Indians-or Pakistanis," says a character in Train to Pakistan (48). Write a 4-5-page paper assessing the validity of the following claim according to Singh, Fanon, and Hobson: liberty is only possible in a nation-state. Do these three books (or characters in the case of Singh) have similar national agendas? What is their attitude toward empire? [Note: For the purpose of this paper, liberty and freedom are used interchangeably.] If empires deprive their subjects from liberty, in the metropole by draining the resources of the nation (Hobson), and in the colony through violence, compartmentalization, and dehumanization (Fanon), is liberty only possible in a nation-state? While Hobson and Fanon would respond positively based on their Herderian view of 'genuine' (popular) nationalism (versus artificial or imposed nationalism), Singh is critical of the plausibility of this 'genuinesses' based on his experience in India. Hobson and Fanon overlap in their criticisms of empire, while Singh is more concerned about historical continuities before and after independence and the importance of the rule of law in preventing violence. Their ideas are ultimately connected to their positionality: Hobson writes as an anti-imperialist nationalist in the metropole, and follows the tradition of political economy before it formally split into politics and economics. Fanon and Singh write from the perspective of the colonies: the former develops an all-encompassing analysis that resonates with Hobson in its Marxist undertones, while the latter creates a fictionalized version of the particular as a way of contesting universal theories and highlighting the problems faced by new postcolonial states. Writing from the colonies right after independence or during the fight for freedom, both Fanon and Singh are aware of the perils of neocolonialism after independence, but the former believes in the possibility of awakening the consciousness of the masses, while the latter sees the limitations and dangers of these awakenings. Ultimately, while Fanon sees the political struggle for independence informing national culture, Singh follows the more traditional understanding that already-existing culture (ie. religious affiliation) impacts politics, potentially with disastrous effects.