Introduction
Nation-building may be defined as the process through which the boundaries of the modern state and those of the national community become congruent. The desired outcome is to achieve national integration (Reference Works: Concepts and Definitions). The major divide in the literature centers on the causal path that leads to national integration. Thus, nation-building has been theorized as a structural process intertwined with industrialization, urbanization, social mobilization, etc. (Structural Explanations); as the result of deliberate state policies that aim at the homogenization of a state along the lines of a specific constitutive story—that can and often does change over time and under certain conditions (State-Planned Policies); as the product of top-bottom processes that could originate from forces outside of the boundaries of the relevant state; and as the product of bottom-up processes that do not require any state intervention to come about (Contingency, Events, and Demonstration Effects). Since the emergence of nationalism as the dominant ideology to legitimate authority and the template of the nation-state as an organizational principle of the international system, state elites have pursued different policies toward the various unassimilated groups within their territorial boundaries (Seminal Case Studies) with variable consequences (Nation-Building and Its Consequences). Thus, scholars have suggested that the nation-building experience of each state—or lack thereof—has had an impact on patterns of State Formation and Social Order, Self-Determination Movements, War Onset, and Public Goods Provision.
Reference Works: Concepts and Definitions
The concept of nation-building cannot be understood without the help of certain key concepts such as the nation, national identity, nation-state, and nationalism. The term “nation” has been defined by multiple philosophers, scholars, and practitioners. These definitions range from essentialist ones that reify certain characteristics as purely national ones (Herder 2004, Fichte 2008) to more constructivist ones highlighting collective ascription as a key element for the existence of a nation (Renan 1995, Anderson 1983). Tension exists between scholars who see the emergence of modern nations as a natural outgrowth from centuries of development and those who understand national identity as a modern social construct. Naturally, most nationalists themselves adopt a primordialist understanding of nationhood but prominent scholars also highlight the ethnic origins of modern nations (Smith 1986). Modernization scholars (Gellner 2006, Anderson 1983) and, later on, various strands of constructivists (Laitin 2007, Brubaker 1996) have pointed out the limitations of the primordialist view. The view of nations being the natural outgrowth of premodern ethnies often assumes phenotypical commonalities that do not correspond to realities on the ground. Moreover, constructivists echo Renan’s critique that shared ethnic attributes do nost necessarily mean a shared national identity or imply anything about loyalty to a nation. Finally, a primordialist perspective that essentializes attributes cannot help us explain identity change (Laitin 2007) or the timing of “national awakenings.” Regardless of the definition of the nation and debates about the origins of nationalism, most scholars agree that nationalism—the “political principle which holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent” (Gellner 2006, see p. 1)—is one of the most potent ideologies in modern times. In fact, what differentiates an ethnic group from a stateless national group is the fact that the former is not motivated by a nationalist ideology, namely the belief that the world is divided into national units (“nation-states”), that the primary loyalty should be to the nation and not to the family, the kinship group, or some other local or supranational unit, accompanied by a claim to sovereignty over a territorially bounded homeland. Nationalism takes different forms depending on the position that the group making the claim to sovereignty currently occupies in relation to other groups (Hechter 2000).
How Can A Citizen Take Part In Nation Building
Citizens can contribute by following socially acceptable behaviour and morally correct actions. These do not need to be included in the constitution, rather it should be followed out of a pure sense of ethically and morally right notions. Following are a few responsibilities that every citizen must take up as a measure to bring about a change in the society:
Focus on Education
Despite our limited resources, the Central Government and State Governments continuously work to improve the education sector by investing in infrastructure, offering financial aid (scholarships and stipends), and other programs. Not all students misuse the financial aid they get, but there have been several instances where it misuse of financial aid reserved for underprivileged students were reported. Students must prioritize their education and make adequate use of the benefits provided to them. The officials serving in the education sector (in and out of administration) also need to do their duty honestly and ethically to ensure the youth get a proper education. Because education plays a vital role in shaping an individual and the nation as a whole. Being a just and honest person is essential for being a responsible citizen.
Contributions to curb climate change
Climate change has emerged as one of the most important global issues as a result of negligent human activities. As one of the world’s most biodiversity-rich nations, India’s government has developed several strategies to safeguard and conserve the country’s natural resources. The nation is home to a number of indigenous species of both flora and wildlife. Consequently, there is a rise in unlawful activities like poaching, hunting, trade, and wood-chopping, among others. These actions have accelerated climate change and led to a decline in (or extinction of) many species. As responsible citizens, we must step forward to spread awareness about these issues and discourage the continuance activities promoting the same. A responsible citizen would also maintain environmental cleanliness by not littering, spitting, or otherwise polluting their environment because they understand the importance of maintaining national integrity.
Abiding by the law and order
Following the rules and regulations formulated by the lawmakers make it easier to maintain safety, security, peace and harmony in the community. These laws are not only to be abided by the common citizens but by everyone included in the administration line as well. From following safety protocols under traffic management to sporting an appropriate dress code when visiting an administrative office, or showing discipline in school/office etc, these principles allow everyone to mitigate conflicts in the public and private sectors. A law-abiding citizen becomes a responsible citizen who contributes to social progress and maintains fairness and peace in society.
In the context of the above mentions, citizens are obligated to contribute towards the betterment of the nation. The obligations mentioned in the 11 fundamental duties in the Indian constitution have an educational purpose and advice for the citizens on how to conduct themselves morally and respectably. These duties were drafted on accords of moral, ethical and cultural codes of conduct to be followed by the people. But it is the prime responsibility of an individual to be self-righteous and act fairly without the need to be educated on moral grounds. As someone once rightly said – “Be the change that you wish to see in the world”.