On Anarchy, Sovereignty, and the State

On Anarchy, Sovereignty, and the State

The title, I suspect, may cause some confusion. How the three terms may be related, one might wonder. 
During the course of a deliberation on 'Politics and Governance', while attending the YLAC's (Young Leaders for Active Citizenship) High School Achievers Program, the discussion steered towards anarchism and the requirement of a government. Hence, this write-up; an endeavor to clarify the relationship.


Firstly, a few definitions are in order. 
Anarchy. It is a state of 'chaos' to put it crudely. Man roams freely with absolute liberty to do as he pleases. There is no administrative or policing authority to restrict his liberty in any manner, nor any laws for him to live by. Anarchy is described by the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes as 'the state of nature', with no societal organisation whatsoever.

Sovereignty. The basic meaning implied by this term is that of independence. In an anarchy, each man is sovereign, and therefore answers to no-one. In the modern world, every nation-state is sovereign, meaning that no external body may interfere in its internal affairs.

Patriotism. It implies the ideology of love and dedication towards one's nation and its people. According to George Orwell, in his 'Notes on Nationalism', "By 'patriotism' I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally." 

The State. This term implies a sovereign political entity clearly demarcated by geographical boundaries. In [very] crude terms, you may think of it as a 'country'. 

Now, why did man deem it necessary to establish what we now know as government? To answer this question, I would again like to refer to Hobbes. In the absence of a government, man would be living in the so-called 'state of nature', a state of anarchy, of chaos. Man would have absolute liberty and freedom to do as he pleased. Each individual would have absolute sovereignty over his own decisions, and no one would have the authority to influence his decisions. However, a problem arises at this juncture. If one person has absolute liberty to do as he pleased, so does everyone else. And in the absence of any higher authority to govern society, each man would have the freedom to undertake actions that may infringe on the freedoms of others to enjoy their rights. For example, in modern society, we all have the freedom to travel freely, but do not have the right to imprison or forcibly confine others. However, in an anarchic society, we would have both the rights. So, one individual, perhaps by virtue of superior physical strength, would infringe on another's freedom to travel freely, by exercising his own freedom to forcibly confine others. Thus, the paradox arises, that the nature of absolute liberty itself would hinder the ability of an individual to enjoy one's liberties. Also, it would be impossible to have an economy of any sort. Individuals may attempt to acquire property from others against their will by use of force or otherwise. In the absence of any monitoring authority, it would be impossible to sustain an economic system of any sort. 

In light of these problems, it becomes essential to have a higher authority of sorts. And thus began the process of evolution of human society. Humans were arranged in small units with chiefs and certain rules that were to be followed. These units progressively grew larger in order to bring about order in society, finally evolving into the modern nation-state. 

Now, when we have established countries with definite geographical boundaries, it is essential that each government has absolute sovereignty. The rationale for this is as follows:

Countries come together on the basis of similarity of culture, race, economic ideologies, or political ideologies. Different countries are then divided on the basis of difference of the same. The very idea of having borders between countries is that the people of different countries are unwilling to live with a people who they perceive as vastly different from themselves. If a country's government does not have a sufficient degree of sovereignty, the idea of borders becomes redundant. 

Which brings me to the question of patriotism. Why is devotion to one's homeland important? Well, this may seem obvious. It is important for the protection of one's country's sovereignty. Also, it provides the essential motivation for the individual to work for the good of his/her society,  

thus aiding in its development and subsequently the development of the individuals living in it. 

From the arguments of sovereignty and patriotism stems the argument in favor of a heterogeneous world with multiple states divided by borders. A country can only develop as much as its citizens desire it to. Therefore, devotion and commitment to their state is essential, since after all, a disillusioned population will never willingly work more than what is required for basic sustenance. For example, the USSR (and many other communist countries for that matter) suffered from an unproductive workforce problem as the workers lacked any incentives or motivation to produce more. Therefore, states must be formed only on the basis of some feeling of common belonging. Devotion to the nation and its ideals, and compliance with the state's governing authority are the two foremost socio-political factors influencing the success of any country. 

This was clearly realized by the founding fathers of India, for they cultivated a common 'Indian' identity for peoples of diverse ethnicities, religions, castes etc. Today, a Tamilian will feel as devoted to India as a Marathi or as a Punjabi. In fact, the genius of cultivating this common identity lay in recognizing these different ethnic identities and dividing them into separate states. Thus, by creating Tamil Nadu for the Tamil people, Maharashtra for the Marathi people, Punjab for the Punjabi people and so on, the founding fathers and their successors managed to cultivate an Indian identity. In short, a homogeneous identity was created by formally and administratively acknowledging  heterogeneous identities. (In fact, this idea was so brilliant, had it not been for power-tussles between certain political groups and leaders, we may not have had India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh; only India.) 

Had the above logic been applied by Pakistan's leaders, they would not have had to face the staggering humiliation of 1971. By undermining Bengali identity and attempting to enforce homogeneity, they suffered the loss of their largest province. East Pakistan in the run-up to 1971 experienced a loss of patriotism. The identity of a Muslim population did not appeal to them as much as the identity of a Bengali population did, and this is where the Pakistani administration remained myopic, and suffered the consequences thereafter. Sardar Vallabhai Patel's campaign to merge the various princely-states revolved around the principle of preserving the cultural identity of each princely state, and thus was a resounding success.