INTERSECTION OF NEOLIBERALISM AND NATIONALISM AT A DISPUTED SITE

The term neoliberalism is an elusive and contested term rarely being used outside the academic circles. It
varies geographically and temporally. If it is dominant economic and political philosophy in America
which takes pride in being world’s oldest democracy, it is also true with China as well which is a one
party authoritarian political system. If the system was forced upon the countries like Chile, Argentina or
Iraq, it was almost willingly accepted without any violence or a military coup by India where the growth
is still state led in spite of privatization of various sectors. “Neoliberal rationality has floated beyond
advanced countries to political environments as varied as garrison states, post socialist, oligarchy or
authoritarian formation without replacing the political apparatus or ideology” (Ong 2006: 5). The system
is so wide spread across the diverse range of ideological, spatial and cultural boundaries that it has almost
become commonsense and normalized. Jamie peck, (2012: 2) says that the “normalized neoliberalism, it
seems, can fade into invisibility”. David Harvey (2005: 2) defines it as “the theory of political economic
practice that proposes that well being of an individual can be advanced by liberating the entrepreneurial
freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free
markets and free trade”. Thus neoliberalism can broadly be associated with free market, competition, least
or no governmental intervention and individual freedoms.

Nationalism on the other hand is analogous to territoriality, nation-states, restrictive mobility and national
interest above an individual interest. All these features seem to be opposed to what neoliberalism stands
for. But in reality this may not be so as neoliberal policies need strong states for their enforcement. As
Foucault (2008) says that competition in neoliberalism is not natural but is produced by the states. Neil
Davidson (2009: 20) argues that “capitalists want competition to take place but on their own terms”. In
other words, they require a strong state to protect them from its consequences. He further argues that
states do not do any function without any ideological attachment or without justification to convince them
that they are doing it in the national interest. Thus “the nation is as much important as the state”
(Davidson, 2009:20). Moreover, the pioneers of neoliberalism had deep rooted ideological differences
when it came to the role of state in neoliberal rationality, where the Freiburg school or the Ordo liberals
were in favour of giving some role to sate in the neoliberal scheme of things. On the other hand, Chicago
school led by Thomas Freidman staunchly opposed to give any role to the state.

David Harvey (2005) observes that the neoliberalism needs some sought of nationalism. He gives the
example of Malvinas/Falklands war during the Margaret Thatcher’s period in UK to whip up the
nationalistic sentiments in order to implement its neoliberal agenda. However, Harvey observes that
nationalist policies may not be compatible with the neoliberalism. Adam Harmes (2012: 60) refutes this
and claims that “nationalistic policies are not only compatible with nationalistic values, but also these
values may actually be dependent on certain nationalistic policies”. Davidson points out that neoliberal
state needs nationalism firstly “for the cohesion at the political that is missing at the social level and
secondly to mobilize the population behind the national capital against their rivals and competitors”
(Davidson 2009:23).

In order to show the promiscuous nature of neoliberalism, Ong (2006:4) articulates neoliberalism in non-
western context in terms of ‘neoliberalism as exception’ and ‘exception to neoliberalism’ to pronounce
the relationship between “governing and governed, power and knowledge and sovereignty and
territoriality”. Thus, she also challenges the fit for all narrative of neoliberalism that is dominant
overarching rationality which sweeps everything that comes along its way and bring a uniform totalizing
social change across all nation-states. Aihwa Ong, (2006:4) describes such formulation of neoliberalism
as “neoliberalism with a capital ‘N’. Providing examples of writers like David Harvey, Hardt and Negri
etc. She argues that “such description unwittingly metaphorize neoliberalism as an economic tsunami that
attacks national space, represented by an inert receptacle of market driven forces and effects” (Ong
2006:4). Rather she views neoliberalism as a neoliberalism with a small ‘n’ which is a set of ‘migratory
practices’ that explain the diverse situations and also engage in creating new possibilities. This
neoliberalism can in turn co-exist with other political rationalities and “the problem of neoliberalism – i.e.
how to administer people for self-mastery ‒ is to respond strategically to people and space for optimal
gains in profit” (Ong 2006:4). This understanding of neoliberalism means “to reorient the intellectual
authority to contextuality which will provide newer ways of thinking about knowledge and its
dissemination” (Kaul 2006:221). Thereby making knowledge ‘contingent and particular’, rather than
fixed and universalized.

Taking this theoretical background in mind the research will attempt to locate the intersection of
nationalism and neoliberalism at a disputed site like Kashmir. Kashmir as known to all is a politically
volatile state where both India and Pakistan have high stakes. For both the countries it is strategically
located and have fought several wars over it. After the rise of insurgency in the late 1980’s number of
people have lost their lives and are losing their lives just for shouting liberty (azadi). It is important to
note that Kashmir is also a resource rich state -resources like water, minerals apart from being a favorite
tourist destination. The research will focus on the telecom sector in Kashmir where privatization on a
large scale has been introduced. The large scale privatization of telecom sector in Kashmir- where
privatization otherwise is negligible fits well in the Ongian idea of neoliberalism which according to her
is introduced in non western context as an exception to control and manage the population. Neoliberalism
is used here as ‘technologies of subjection’ as a political strategy to regulate and mold citizens in line with
the schemes of a security state. Moreover, neoliberalism does not limit the governmental activities rather
can be understood as a “new form of relationship between knowledge and government” (Ong 2006:5).

Mona Bhan, (2014:191) in the context of dam construction in Kashmir argues that “India’s obsessive
construction of dam in Kashmir cannot be solely attributed to the ‘techno-economic’ need or to be
unfulfilled energy demands of the growing population”. She states that the disputed status of Kashmir and
its crucial location of water resources have remained major source of tension between India and Pakistan.
Thus dam construction is a “key strategic investment to maintain its national security and energy
security” (Bhan 2014:191). Her analysis of dam construction in the Gurez region of Kashmir, attempts to
find how the corporate morality works in a situation where corporate are deeply suspected not only for
their greed but also for being the extension of the Indian state. She claims that mid-level managers
employ “the language of competiveness and efficiency to emphasize their role as “guardians” of social
order in which hard work, entrepreneurship and human will is valorized as foundational attributes of good
citizenship” (Bhan 2014: 194). Thus they not only make the people self-governing and self-responsible
but also their demand for freedom is reinterpreted as ‘moral crisis’ which make such corporations as
nationalistic or patriotic corporations. It is as Fanon (1963:41) “says that the natives are declared as
insensible to ethics”. Duschinski (2009: 699) also claims that “the triangulation of market expansion,
violent nationalism and jingoistic militarism has played out through a moral performance of national
security in Kashmir valley”. What is important to note that the neoliberal practices not only produce
subjects that are dispensable or the violence is justified in the name of national security but also these
practices are not introduced in totality or bring a wholesome transformation but as Ong claims are
announced “in the form of exceptions to political business as usual bringing about refiguration of political
logics and spaces” (Ong 2006: 6).

From the Indian perspective Kashmir is an integral part of India and has special provisions like article 370
and 35a in the Indian constitution protecting its territorial integrity and also some benefits which are
accrued to the permanent residents of the state because of these special provisions. But in the recent past
there have been many efforts to abrogate these provisions ostensibly to complete the merger of state with
the Indian Union. But the other and more important reasons of such moves could be to allow the
businessmen of India to invest in the state without any legal glitches. As the one of the most regularly
thrown arguments against the special provisions is the economic argument. This is evident from a speech
of RSS Chief, Mohan Bhagwat who termed article 370 “as the major obstacle in the development of
Kashmir” (Economic Times, 2017).

IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN.
Refrences:
Bhan, Mona. “Morality and Martyrdom: Dams, Dharma and the Cultural Politics of Work in India-Occupied
Kashmir”. Biography (2014): 191-224.

Davidson, Neil. "Putting the nation back into ‘the international’." Cambridge Review of International Affairs 22.1
(2009): 9-28.

Foucault, Michel, Arnold I. Davidson, and Graham Burchell. 2008. The birth of biopolitics: lectures at the Collège
de France, 1978-1979Davidson, Neil. The origins of Scottish nationhood. Pluto Press, 2000.

Fanon, Frantz. "The wretched of the earth." New York: Grove(1963).

Economic Times 2017 “Constitutional amendments needed to assimilate Kashmiris with the rest of the country.
Mohan Bhagwat”. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com › News › Politics and Nation. Published on SEP 30 2017,
Accessed on Dec 20 2018.

Harmes, Adam. "The rise of neoliberal nationalism." Review of International Political Economy 19.1 (2012): 59-86.

Harvey, David. 2007. A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press,

Ong, AIhwa. “Neoliberalism as a mobile technology” Transactions of the institute of British geographers 32.1
(2007): 3-8.

Ong, Aihwa. Neoliberalism as exception: Mutations in citizenship and sovereignty. Duke University Press,
2006

Peck, Jamie. 2010. Constructions of Neoliberal Reason, Oxford University Press.

Duschinski, Haley, “Destiny Effects: Militarization, State Power, and Punitive Containment in Kashmir Valley.”
Anthropological Quarterly 82.3 (2009): 691–717.

Kaul, Nitasha. Imagining economics otherwise: encounters with identity/difference. Routledge, 2000

Proposed Readings:

Anderson, Benedict. "The new world disorder." New Left Review 193 (1992): 3.

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso Books,
2006

Barlow, Maude, and Tony Clarke. Global showdown: How the new activists are fighting global corporate rule.
Stoddart Pub, 2001.
Brown, Wendy. 2015. Undoing the Demos, Neoliberalism’s stealth Revolution, MIT Press.

Brown, Wendy. 2017. Walled States, Waning Sovereignty. MIT Press

Davies, William. 2016. The limits of neoliberalism: Authority, sovereignty and the logic of competition. Sage.

Demmers, Jolle, and Sameer S. Mehendale. 2010 "Neoliberal xenophobia: the Dutch case." Alternatives 35.1: 53-70

Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism and freedom: With the assistance of Rose D. Friedman. University of Chicago
Press

Gamble, Andrew. The free economy and the strong state: the politics of Thatcherism. Macmillan International
Higher Education, 1994.

Greenfeld, Liah. The spirit of capitalism. Harvard University Press, 2009.

Guibernau, Montserrat. Nationalisms 1996: The nation-state and nationalism in the twentieth century. Cambridge
polity.

Haddad, Toufic. Palestine Ltd.: Neoliberalism and Nationalism in the Occupied Territory. IB Tauris, 2016.

Hayek, Friedrich A. 1944. The Road to Serfdom: London. Taylor & Francis.

Hayek. F. A. 1945. Sep. 1945. Use of Knowledge in Society, The American Economic Review, Vol. 35, No. 4.
pp. 519-530.

Jones, Daniel Stedman. 2012. "Masters of the universe: Hayek." Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics,
Princeton, New Jersey

Luckas George 1970. Lenin: A Study in the Unity of His Thought. London. New Left Books.

Klein, Naomi. 2007. "The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism." New York: Picador.

The Government of Life Foucault, Biopolitics, and Neoliberalism. 2014. Edited by Vanessa Lemm and Miguel
VatterFordham University New York Press.

Von Mises, Ludwig. Nation, state, and economy. A contribution to politics and history of our time. Liberty Fund,
2012.

Wolin, Sheldon S. 2017. Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted
Totalitarianism-New Edition. Princeton University Press.