16 Conceptualising Ethnicity in India

Sumati Unkule

Introduction

Early modernisation theories had assumed that, 1) there are recognizably traditional institutions, and they constitute a barrier to modernization; 2) to the extent that modernization takes place ‘traditional’ institutions must decline (Randall et.al, 1998: 45). However, the modernization theories failed to understand that: 1) diversity and perseverance of various forms of tradition; 2) complexity of tradition’s relationship with modernity; and 3) political significance of so called traditional phenomena, such as clientelism, religion, ethnicity and caste (Haynes, 2008:23).

The social scientists argued that as a society modernizes itself, primordial identities like religious, ethnic, caste, and kinship will gradually lose its importance. According to Alison, (2012), a world – anticipated by the early modernization theory – that breaks down people’s localised ethnic identities and replaces them with loyalties to larger communities had arrived. With globalization, the concept of homogenization gained credence and it was thought that the world will be a global village and there will be further eroding of these primordialities.

The contemporary world defies this prediction. Rather, today, as argued by Dube (1997) it looks as though the movement of history reverses and discarded primordialities get revived, resurrected and reinstated. The rejects of the past have been set up as idols of the present. As a result, each part of the world is engulfed with various ethnic conflicts. Rawanda, Yugoslavia, Azarbejan, Georgia, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, North Ireland and many other countries are full of ethnic wars. Development too has not been able to neutralise these identity issues, rather in some cases it has heightened it (Sachidananda, 1997).

Contemporary India too is not an exception to this. Soon after independence the makers of modern India too believed that as the process of modernization and secularization accelerates, pre-modern identities will eventually wane away. India’s image has always been that of a country known for its ‘unity in diversity’. Diversity of religion, ethnicity, language and culture, about which it once boasted of, now has become a major source of conflict and poses threat to its nation-building project.

In this module we will study the concept and history of the term ethnicity from a sociological perspective, and why ethnicity remains a major source of identity for large number of people in India. Are the present ethnic conflicts results of history or is it something to do with the globalization and neo-liberal policies? What is the relation between globalization and revival of pre-modern identities like ethnicity? Lastly, we will study the case study of Khalistan, a secessionist movement in India.

Section 1: Conceptualizing Ethnicity

Ethnicity remains one of the most complex concepts in sociology. According to the Oxford Dictionary, the word ethnicity means the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition. Horowitz (1985) understands ethnicity as a sense of collective belonging, which could be based on common descent, language, history, culture, arce or religion or maybe a combination of these1. Ethnicity is defined as, ‘either a large or small group of people, in either backward or advanced societies, who are united by a common inherited culture (including language, music, food, dress, and customs and practices), racial similarity, common religion, and belief in common history and ancestry and who exhibit a strong psychological sentiments of belonging to a group. (Ganguly, 1998, p. 9)

An ethnic groups exists in fullest sense when “a segment of a larger society is seen by others to be different in some combination of the following characteristics – language, religion, race and ancestral homeland with its related culture; the members also perceive themselves in that way; and they participate in shared activities build around their (real or mythical) common origin or culture” (Yinger, 1976, p. 200). It is important to recognize that an ethnic group may do without a state of its own and a nation implies bringing ethnicity and statehood together (Varshney 2009, 2001).According to Giddens (2005), ethnicity refers to the cultural practices and outlooks of a given community of people that set them apart from others. Based on the analysis of Giddens, one can infer that ethnicity refers primarily to distinctiveness of their lifestyle (culture) and it is a social concept.

From the above definitions we can conclude that ethnicity includes features such as:

• Refers to cultural practices
• People see themselves as culturally distinct from other groups

1 Varshney (2009) argues that some separate religion, allowing ethnicity to incorporate other attributes. The issue becomes critical when religion and ethnicity clash (East and West Pakistan before 1971, Kashmiri Hindus and Muslims, Black and White American Christians)

Have different language, history, religion, style of dress, adornment Ethnic differences are wholly learnt, nothing innate about ethnicity Purely a social phenomenon that is produced as reproduced over time Young people assimilate the lifestyle, norms, and beliefs of their communities through socialization It is fluid and changing

According to Esman (1994), ethnic groups are of 2 distinct types: homelands societies and Diaspora communities. Ethnic groups are considered as homelands societies when they are the long-time occupants of a particular territory and thereby claim an exclusive as well as a moral right to rue it. Often such claims are backed by historical and archaeological evidence.

Ethnic Diaspora communities are found in foreign countries. They are caused by migrations induced mainly by oppression in their home state or by the attraction of better economic prospects. They cannot claim territorial control in foreign state; instead they normally demand ‘non-discriminatory participation as individuals in public affairs – voting, office holding, access to justice – plus non-discriminatory access to education, employment, housing and official recognition of their right to maintain institutions that perpetuate elements of their inherited culture (Esman, 1994). The contemporary political usage of the term ethnic group has been primarily restricted to ‘a quasi-national kind of “minority group” within the state, which has somehow not achieved the status of a “nation” (Esman,1994). Thus, ethnicity is a complex term, and it involves various psychological, economic, historical, and political factors.

Varshney (2009) differentiates between, nationality and an ethnic group; nation is a group with a political and territorial home; nationality is a large ethnic group without such home (but with cultural rights pertaining to language and sometimes religion; and an ethnic group is a smaller collective different from nationality but not large enough to be called a nationality. It is important to understand that for a shift from an ethnic group to nationhood, territorial concentration remains central. Thus national demands for sovereignty come from territorially concentrated ethnic groups (Quebec, Basques, Sikhs, Kashmiris, Bengali Muslims, Sri Lankan Tamils). But ‘a conjunction of territorial concentration and ethnicity may be a necessary condition for nationalism, though it is manifestly not sufficient (2009:227). What is essential to understand as students of sociology that when ethnic conflicts arise they may take the way of separatist nationalism thus questioning three principles of nation state: territoriality, citizenship and sovereignty.In conclusion one could argue that there are two distinct ways in which the term ‘ethic’ is interpreted; within the narrower sense it refers to ‘racial’ or ‘linguistic’ groups, which is widely used in popular discourse in India and in many other parts. In the broader sense as Horowitz (1985) states all conflicts based on ascriptive group identities – race, language, religion, tribe or caste- can be called ethnic (Varshney 2001).

History of the term ethnicity

In the book Sociology of Ethnicity Malesevic (2004), has given a detailed history of the term ethnicity. This section is drawn heavily from the book. Sociologically the term ‘ethnicity’ was coined by D. Riesman in 1953 and it gained wider use during the 1960s and the 1970s. The term ethnicity has its roots in the Greek ethnos/ethnikos, that is non-Hellenic and later non-Jewish (Gentile), second class peoples (Malesevic, 2005). The Anglo-American tradition adopted ‘ethnicity’ as a substitute for minority groups within a larger society of the nation-state, the European tradition regularly opted to use ethnicity as a synonym for nationhood defined historically by descent or territory. At the same time both traditions shared a joint aim to replace concept of ‘race’. Popular discourses in Europe and North America have ‘racialised’ the concept of ethnicity. (Malesevic, 2004)

The collapse of the colonial world in the 1950s and 60s have further added to the complexity of the meaning of the concept of ethnicity. Following the consolidation of North American popular and legislative discourse the new post colonial immigrants who are visibly different have also become defined as ‘ethnic’ thus simultaneously preserving old definitions of historical ethnicity by descent or territory while adding the new definition of ethnicity as an immigrant minority. (Malesevic, 2004) The fall of the communism and the breakup of the Soviet-style federations along ‘ethnic’ lines and the emergence of ‘ethnic cleansing’ policies in the Balkans and Caucasus have further complicated these definitional issues. With the wars on former Yugoslav soil, extensive and influential mass media coverage of ‘ethnic conflicts’ has seen the term ‘ethnic’ degenerate into a synonym for tribal, primitive, barbaric and backward. (Malesevic, 2004)

Finally, the ever increasing influx of asylum seekers, refugees and economic migrants to western Europe, North America and Australia, who do not necessarily express visible or significant physical, cultural or religious differences to their hosts, together with their uncertain legal status has relegated the term ‘ethnic’ to a quasi-legislative domain. In this context, the term ‘ethnicity’ refers again to non citizens who inhabit ‘our land’ i.e. to second-class people. (Malesevic, 2004). From the above discussion regarding the concept and history of ethnicity, it is clear that the term ethnicity was used differently and it meant differently in different times of history. Today, it largely means a group of minority people having different culture. In this context, one also needs to understand the concept of race and minority.

Related Concept: Race and Minority

Race

Race remains one of the most complex concepts in sociology. In popular usage ‘race’ may mean human race or any category of people can be called as belonging to certain race. Race according to some is a group of people who may be separated from other groups by distinctive physical features like colour of skin, hair, structure of jaw, structure of eyes. Race as a term gained usage around 16th Century and began to be referred to family, lineage and breed. It was in the 18th Century period especially during the Enlightenment – Age of Reason that the idea of race began to be explored more systematically. Scientific theories of race arose in 18th and 19th centuries. As Trautmann (1997) states that terms such as ‘race’, ‘nation’, and ‘stock’ were used interchangeably in the 18th Century but with the advent of race science as well as European Nationalism in the later 19th Century, they began to take on political meanings. They were used to justify the emerging social order as England and other European nations became imperial powers ruling over subject territories and populations (Giddens, 2005).

Rattansi (2007) puts forth three important dimensions that needs to be taken into account while analysing race; one the idea of race contains both biological and cultural elements, for example skin colour, religion, and behaviour. Secondly the biological and cultural aspects projects itself in different degrees in any definition of a racial group and that depends not only on the group but also the historical period in question. Finally ‘racial status’ is subject to and conditioned upon political negotiation and transformation.

The post II World War era has raised serious questions about the scientific base of race. It is now accepted that there cannot be clear cut races but range of physical variations in human beings. History has witnessed various discrimination, prejudice and genocides based on race.

As a result race remains an important concept that interests sociology as it allows certain status and role for individuals and groups in a particular society.

Minority

The word ‘minority’ is used differently in sociology. Largely, people understand minority in statistical terms. In sociology, term minority means the people or groups that are disadvantaged as compared to the majority population. Also, they have certain sense of group solidarity because of experiencing same prejudice and discrimination. This has nothing to do with numbers. For example, women are considered as minority though they are fairly equal in number of men. Jairath (2011) argues that while Muslims constitute the largest religious minority in India and are ingrained into the cultural, economic and political space of India, there is a lack of academic recognition of the diversity and stratification among Muslims. Thus for a well grounded sociology of India it necessitates a proactive engagement with the study of Muslim communities.

Approaches to the study of Ethnicity

Scholars are divided in their opinion regarding how ethnic identity is formed and why it persists. Pathy (1988) in his book has stated debates among the scholars in the area of the study of ethnicity. The debate between primordialists and instrumentalists centres on the nature of ethnic groups. Primordialists approach was put forth first by Edward Shils in 1957. This approach considers ethnicity as a natural bond between people, immutable or primordial. Thus the formation of political identity from parochial loyalties is believed to be conditioned by natural law, an a priori reality. This approach has been criticized as static and naturalistic, and as failing to account for the impact of immigration and intermarriage (http://www.encyclopedia.com/). Instrumentalists approach was put forth by scholars like E.R. Leach, Abner Cohen, Michael Banton and Micheal Moerman. They emphasized the utilitarian and thus rational bent of ethnic groupings, whose shifting shape reflect changing conditions. They conceive ethnicity as an emergent process of power struggles; they believe cultural factors are epiphenomenal to the process. This approach has been criticized for underplaying durable, affective, and persisting constructions of ethnic identity (http://www.encyclopedia.com/).

The debate between survivalists and evolutionists is based on how ethnic identities will change. Survivalists argue that ethnicity will go on taking new forms with changing systems and will never disappear as it serves the basic communal affective needs. While evolutionists argue that ethnicity is destined to wither away and yield to genuine democratic and socialist forms, where colour, creed and language will not impede full social participation. In the debate between the maximalists Vs minimalists, the maximalists’ assert that strong ethnicity manifests itself in violence and bloodshed while weak ethnicity is expressed in symbolic nonviolent ways. While minimalist tend to restrict their interest to one end of the continuum depending on their intentionality level, on the strong manifestation of ethnicity. This debate is of little consequence as ethnic processes occur along the whole continuum and at different moments and one can transform into the other in either ways.

Varshney (2001, 2009) states that constructivism approach is an important perspective to understand ethnicity. The core idea within constructivism is that ethnic identities are constructs of the modern epoch; that is they are social constructs (Fearon and Laitin 2001). Such an approach questions the assumption among people that social categories are natural, inevitable and unchanging facts of life. Drawing from the works of Hobswan and Ranger (1983), Mamdani (1996), Vail (1989) and Suny (2001), the argument is that modernity has transformed the meaning of ethnic identities by bringing the masses into a variety of newer forms of consciousness and meanings. What are the new forms? Varshney argues that three kinds of mechanisms are important; one technological, ideational and colonial policies, institutions and practices. Critical among the works is the argument of Anderson developed in his book ‘Imagined Communities’(1983), where he states that the rise of ‘print capitalism’-that is the arrival of the printing press and capitalism – as the basic system through which local identities gets transformed into larger national identities (Chandra 2001).

Further drawing from Taylor (1994), it is argued that how much modernity has brought about ideational changes in human life. Specifically modernity has presented to us the notion of ‘dignity’; to which all of us are entitled. Thus Varshney (2009:286) argues that ‘much of ethnic assertion in the modern world is about resisting such “confining, demeaning and contemptible pictures the dominant groups- through colonial rulers and state bureaucracies – have often relayed to the subordinate groups. The key word here is dignity, not material self-interest’.

As Brass (1991) argues one, ethnicity and nationalism are not givens rather are social and political constructions and two, that ethnicity and nationalism are modern phenomena inseparably connected with the activities of the modern centralizing state. Thus it is important to focus on the specific type of interactions between the leadership of centralizing states and elites from non-dominant ethnic groups, especially in the peripheries of those states.

Theoretical Framework

Since the classics of sociological thought, with exception to Max Weber, did not operate with the term ‘ethnic’ , sociologist had to turn to anthropology and, in particular to the work of Fredrick Barth (1969) in order to explain the power of cultural difference, both historically and geographically. Barth defined and explained ethnicity from outside in rather than the inside out traditional approach – it is not the ‘possession’ of cultural characteristics that makes social group distinct but rather it is the social interaction with the other groups that makes that difference possible, visible and socially meaningful.

Hence, the focus in the study of ethnic difference has shifted from the study of its contents (i.e. the structure of the language, the form of the particular customs, and the nature of eating habits) to the study of cultural boundaries and social interaction. Cultural differences per se does not create ethnic collectivities: it is the social contact with others that leads to definition and categorization of an ‘us’ and a ‘them’. ‘Group identities must always be defined in relation to that which they are not – in other words, in relation to non-members of the group’ (Eriksen, 1993). Functionalist theory argues that the relations between racial and ethnic groups will be functional and thus lead to stability of a society only when ethnic groups assimilate into that society. Assimilation according to Giddens (2005) means the acceptance of a minority group by a majority population, in which group takes on the values and norms of the dominant cultures. This is in contrast to values like cultural pluralism, and multiculturalism. Conflict theories are concerned with the links between racism and prejudice on the one hand and relationships of power and inequality on the other. According to some Marxist theories racism was a product of the capitalism system. The system of slavery, colonization and racism remained ways to exploit the labours which remains essential aspect of capitalism.

Ethnic Discrimination

Throughout the history discrimination has been practiced on the basis of ethnic identities in most of the societies. Three broad categories of ethnic discrimination can be identified. Firstly, the most severe acts involving mass societal aggression, such as the Nazi Holocaust during World War II, the second category involves denial of access to societal opportunities and rewards in such areas as employment, education, housing, health care, and justice for example, apartheid regime in South Africa. The third category of ethnic discrimination includes the use of derogatory or abusive language or forms of representation that are felt to be offensive e.g. racist jokes. (http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Ethnicity.aspx)

Ethnic Groups in India

Indian society has a complex history of more than 5000 years. It’s a history of series of migrations, assimilations, accommodations, invasions and wars. There is no written account of the early India therefore it is impossible to identify the earliest inhabitants of India.

According to Dube (1990), we can speculate about the original people of India on the basis of information provided by physical anthropology regarding the ethnic elements, i.e. the racial groups, in the population of India. The most authoritative and widely accepted classification is by Guha (1944) who identified six major racial elements in the population of India – Negrito, Proto – Australoids, Mongoloid, Mediterranean, Western Brachycephals, and Nordic.

The Negroids from Africa are considered as the earliest people to have come to India. The Jarawas, Onges, Sentinelese and the Great Andamanese are some of the examples. Proto-Australoid is numerically more significant groups which forms most of the tribes of middle India. Mongoloid are the tribals of north east. Mediterraneans are the people of South India. They are believed to be residents of the land before the Aryans. Western Bracycephals include the Alpinoids, Dinarics and Armenoids. The Parsis and Kodavas fall in this category. They are the broad headed people living mainly on the western side of the country such as the Ganga Valley and the delta, parts of Kashmir, Kathiawar, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Nordics or the Indo-Aryans- These groups were the last one to immigrate to India. They came to India somewhere between 2000 and 1500 B.C. They are now mainly found in the northern and central part of India. The Nordics were the last major ethnic element to arrive in India and make a profound impact on its culture and society. (Guha, 1944; Dube, 1990)

With the advent of Aryans around 2000 and 1500 B.C the process of Aryanization began. The Aryans influenced Indian society in a fundamental way. The ideological and social framework of Indian society began taking shape when the area of interaction between the indo-Aryans and the earlier inhabitants widened. Its earlier phase was characterized by considerable cultural conflict and warfare. Gradually pluralism was being stabilized and a cultural mosaic being formed (Dube, 1990). India has a history of more than 5000 years and there have been migration for centuries from various parts of the world. After Aryans many others like the Greeks, the Arabs, the Turks, the Mughals, the Portuguese, and the British invaded India at various epochs in history. With these invaders came their culture and religion. As a result various types of groups with their own unique culture proliferated in India. As a result Indian population is polygenetic and is a blend of various cultures and races from the world. The contemporary Indian culture is product of amalgamation of all these cultures. The metaphor ‘unity in diversity’ is a result of this.

Ethnic Conflicts in India

With this long history of conquests and invasions, contemporary India is a country where people from different communities, religions have lived together for centuries. Gradually, India as a nation emerged. With advent of the British and other foreign rulers, India began to emerge as a nation. The British rulers consciously followed the policy of ‘divide and rule’. As a result, though the nation fought together against them to gain freedom, they were successful in dividing India on the basis of religion. The Constitution of India was implemented on 26th January, 1950. The Constitution guarantees fundamental rights to the citizens of India, ensuring equality, freedom and justice. There is a rule of law in India and all citizens are equal irrespective of their religion, birth, caste, class, language, or ethnicity in front of the law.

In spite of all these Constitutional and legal safeguards promoting national integration, ethnic conflicts started taking place due to the distinctions made between the groups based on language, ethnicity and regions. Problems started arising when people speaking different languages and belonging to different states like Gujarati, Marathi, Assamese, Oriya, Hindi and others considered each other different in national context. The problems of the North East region are particularly acute as they never felt as ‘belonging’ to India. This was because of various reasons like: were poorly connected to the other parts of India, their history, their culture was not adequately represented, they are ethnically, linguistically and culturally very distinct from the other states of India, they are territorially organized in such a manner that ethnic and cultural specificities were ignored during the process of delineation of state boundaries in the 1950s and many other. As a result North East region of India is simmering with various ethnic conflicts and secessionist movements too have erupted in Nagaland.

Eventually these ethnic identities were used to promote narrow ends posing a threat to national integration. This remains a challenge in front of India. Nation building was challenging in India especially because of what Srinivas (1992), calls as ‘runaway ethnicity’. In runaway ethnicity, loyalty to the group one belongs to is compounded by other factors like language, religion, economic backwardness and isolation. He further states that ‘runaway ethnicity’ is bad enough, but when to it is added the continuous immigration of outside groups which threaten to swamp, numerically and culturally, the indigenes, the situation is likely to become explosive. Such conflicts and ethnic politics also impacts gender relations specifically.

Nongbri (2008) in her analysis of the Khasi, a matrilineal tribe of the Northeast India, states that the rising ethnic politics has affected women negatively. How does this happen? She argues as gender identity is treated as synonymous with ethnic identity, ethnic politics is reinforcing women’s subordinate position within the tribe. Nonbgri (2008:482-483) ‘observes that with the tribe’s accession to the Indian Union and the political modernization of the northeast region, the link between ethnicity, patriarchy and the state, which was lying dormant in the traditional political set up has come to the fore. The unequal pattern of development exposed the tribes to exploitation in the hands of the outsiders, provided the immediate imperative for this tripartite partnership’. Thus ethnic politics is played on the body of women through controlling and regulating their sexuality and labour.

The context of globalization has added to the complexity. Though migration was a common phenomenon even before, yet post globalization it has accelerated migratory movements of people within and across borders. These migratory movements have added to the ethnic diversity and have given rise to various social, political and economic issues. These have given rise to various issues related to ethnic identities and ethnic conflicts. Many times, because of these cultural, historical, and social factors ethnic conflicts have been violent and many secessionist movements have emerged throughout India at different times. For instance, there were secessionist demands from Punjab, Nagaland, Tamil Nadu, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, and Jammu & Kashmir. In the following section, we are going to study the case study of Khalistan, a secessionist movement which had emerged in Punjab.

Secessionist Movement: A Case Study

Khalistan Movement in Punjab

The Khalistan movement emerged around the 1980s in Punjab. It was a secessionist movement that aspired to create a separate Sikh country called Khalistan in the Punjab region. Khalistan literally means a land of pure people. From the years 1980 – 92, the state of Punjab was full of violent conflict to establish Khalistan. Almost 25,000 people lost their lives (Dyke, 2009).

According to Jodhka (2001), the rise of a powerful Khalistan movement was an unprecedented development in post-independence India. It was unprecedented because Punjab was a well integrated part of the country, there had never been any doubts about the nationalist credentials of the Sikhs, and Punjab had done well economically during the post-independence period. Therefore, rise of secessionist movement was a puzzle for many and a challenge for the academia.

This movement is significant for various reasons, firstly, it changed the popular image of Punjab from a state known for its economic progress to a ‘crisis ridden’ state, it raised many critical questions on secularism, culture, community identities and rights that challenged some of the basic assumptions around which the independent Indian nation was being forged(Jodhka, 2001).

Let us briefly see the history of Punjab and Khalistan Movement. This history of Punjab and Khalistan movement is based on various sources from the internet and a book on history of modern India written by B.L Grover (1998). The region of Punjab has been a traditional homeland of the Sikhs, where the Sikh religion was born sometime around 1500 A.D. Its founder Guru Nanak and the nine Gurus developed the Sikh community over the next centuries.

When the demand for Pakistan was made at Lahore Resolution, some Sikh leaders were concerned that their community would be left without any homeland after partition. This was largely because Pakistan had demanded a large part of Punjab. This led some of the Sikh community leaders to put forth the idea of Khalistan which covered the greater Punjab region. But they were unable to demand their own state as too small in number to resist to Pakistan’s claim to Punjab. Only by siding with India were they able to keep part of the Punjab. After the partition was announced, the majority of the Sikhs migrated from the Pakistani part to the Indian province of Punjab, which then included the parts of the present-day Haryana and Himachal Pradesh.

The Punjabi Suba Movement led by the Akali Dal aimed to create a Punjabi-majority state in the Punjab region of India in the 1950s. The States Reorganization Commission did not recognize Punjabi as being very distinct from Hindi and rejected the demand. However, in 1966, after years of Sikh demands, India divided the Punjab into three, recreating Punjab as a state with a Sikh majority.

The Sikhs continuously felt oppressed with the way in which boundaries were set of the new state. As a result the Khalistan movement reached its zenith in 1970s and 1980s for which they get monetary assistance from NRI Sikhs. In1984 ‘Operation Blue Star’ was launched by Government of India. The objective was to eliminate organized secessionist movement that the government believed that was being operated from the temple. This invasion of the holiest place of the Sikhs infuriated many Sikhs, even the non-militant. The result of this was almost 1000 of Sikh militants were killed followed by assassination of Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, in October 1984 by her two Sikh bodyguards. This was followed by anti-Sikh riots throughout India in which thousands of Sikhs lost their lives. Sikhs are still resentful that action has not been taken against all those who were responsible.

On 26 January 1986, the gathering passed a resolution favoring the creation of Khalistan. Subsequently, a number of rebel militant groups in favour of Khalistan waged a major insurgency which was suppressed by the security forces. Sikh political groups such as the Khalsa Raj Party and SAD (A) continued to pursue an independent Khalistan through non-violent means. Pro-Khalistan organizations such as Dal Khalsa are also active outside India. They are supported by a section of the Sikh diaspora.

According to Jodhka (2001), the rise of Khalistan movement coincided with then interest in the questions of nationalism and ethnicity’. In the fast globalizing world, the ‘homeland’ has once again become easily accessible to the diaspora. The economic mobility experienced by some sections of the working class Punjabi migrants helped them send their children to schools and universities. Turmoil in the “homeland” obviously generated passion and interest among many of them. Having settled themselves economically they understandably began to think of their cultural identities once again. Many of the writings on the Khalistan movement emanated from the then dominant paradigm of modernization and saw crises like those in Punjab primarily as transitional phenomena, a problem in the evolutionary process of nation building or a consequence of elite manipulation, a typical feature of young democracies like India. Many saw the communal mobilizations among the Sikhs as a response to the anxieties generated by the process of modernization. He insists that it was necessary to look at the politics of ethnicity and identities from the perspective of the political economy. According to Dyke (2009), a Sikh militant movement in Punjab is unlikely to emerge again in near future because of exhaustion from the militant era, the shift toward federalism in the Indian political system, the increased importance of state level parties, the rise of Bharatiya Janata Party, and the emergence of coalition politics.

Summary

The above sections deal with sociological concept of ethnicity and its history. It describes how ethnicity remains a complex yet significant concept in contemporary times. Lastly, it discusses the case study of Khalistan, a secessionist movement in India around 1980s.