THE term “nation” may sound ancient, but its association with the concept of “state” is a modern phenomenon. 

Nationalism began to emerge around the Renaissance period, but only took shape in the 18th century. The concept of nation in Europe developed on the territory of patrimonial state. 

With the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the rise of the bourgeoisie, feudalism withered, and traditional authorities – monarchical and ecclesiastical – were losing power to control. The modern concept of nation became the new foundation of sovereignty. 

A community is often founded and reinforced by innate elements that one cannot control or reject, e.g. “we share the same bloodline”. National identity is a strong ideology based on blood ties, a common language, and a shared history. 

Even when the features are questionable in themselves and they don’t necessarily overlap, the concept of nation still binds the people together and thus demands their loyalty. 

A nation is in fact a social construct. It is often portrayed as if its existence has been passed down from generation to generation since ancient times. 

The concept, natural as it seems, has always appeared within a specific historical context and it changes constantly according to the contemporary political narrative. 

A nation is not what it claims to be, in perpetuity. 

A nation assumes that a certain group has an inseparable destiny. The glory of the nation is my glory, and the failure of the nation is my failure. 

The little “I” must sacrifice to devote to the big “us”. A nation urges people to unite to bring prosperity to the nation.

However, unlike a state with a geographical boundary, a nation relies on its members’ emotional and psychological identification with the collective. 

A nation is an “imagined community” as the members do not meet most others in their lifetimes. Though a nation is different from a state, these two attract and make use of each other.

The sacred meaning of the nation consolidates the state, while the coercive power of the state sustains the nation. 

The concept of nation is often associated with the origin of a state. How do history books tell the story of Malaysia? 

It always starts with the migration of Parameswara to the Malay Peninsula and the founding of the great Malacca sultanate. This narrative ignores the indigenous people who had taken root here much earlier, as if it were a no-man’s land. 

The mythical origin of the state often justifies a certain political system and becomes the basis for a particular ethnic group to represent the state. 

A nation presumes to have an internal homogeneity. During the colonial period, European countries constructed their own nationhood by differentiating themselves from the colonised “other” – the inferior barbarians.

On the other hand, the colonised wielded national self-interest to resist external domination and eventually expelled the colonisers from their homeland. 

But the walls built by nationalism may create another kind of repression and end up suppressing internal differences under the banner of national unity. 

In a post-colonial country, disparate communities are forced to come together. They are being shaped into a “nation” within the boundaries created by the colonisers and become a truly “imagined” community. 

Herein lies the dilemma. The new nation consists of various groups: the Malays, the Chinese, the Indians, and those labelled as “dan lain-lain”. Their very definition as a race or ethnic group is problematic enough, let alone being forced into becoming a “nation”. 

Various communities try to defend their identities within a larger group. Many Malays want to be identified by means of “religion” and “monarch” (whereas the European concept of nation was supposed to fill the void left by the pre-eminence of religion and monarch). 

Many Chinese people emphasise their contribution to this country, at the same time think of themselves as the descendants of the Yan and Huang emperors, having inherited a mighty 5000-year-old civilisation.

Most Indians, as a minority, struggle for the preservation of Hinduism and mainly Tamil education.

However, there are personal choices, diverse beliefs and cultural integration that undermine the stereotypes, and many intermarriages that blur boundaries.

Nationalism takes different forms in different regions and times. Sometimes, it is a driving force for unity, calling for national integration, and sometimes it is a cause of division, serving as a banner for separatist movements, such as “Sarawak for Sarawakian” and “Bangsa Johor”. 

There are various attempts to maintain the fragile unity: Bangsa Malaysia, Satu Malaysia, Keluarga Malaysia… But do they really make a difference?

It is up to you to judge. – September 26, 2022.

* Veronica Lim Yi Hui is the Agora Society chairman. She holds a degree in biochemistry and is a PhD candidate in Philosophy. She has great interest in human creative endeavours like films and music. At the same time, she is concerned over the destructive impact of humans on the planet.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.