© 2007, Sachin Nandha, www.globalchange.org.

uk

State & the Nation

By Sachin Nandha, 2004

The modern conception of a nation has been somewhat perversed in recent decades due to a
common confusion that the State is solely responsible for the welfare of all and overall
direction in which the nation evolves. Communism and other socialist movements in the 19th
and 20th centuries wholly endorsed this notion of the state being solely responsible. Simply
put, the state is neither the nation nor can represent the entire nation but is only an
institution, which helps the nation fulfil some of its potential.

Just as evolutionists have discovered that nature develops specific organs within the body to
continue life forever adapting to the external environment, so the nation creates institutions,
which assist the fulfilment of the national goals. Trade Unions, pressure groups, political
parties, NGO’s, charity organisations, welfare trusts, media, etc. are all merely institutions
which should assist the nation evolve and in return must evolve in response to the ever
changing external environments. Concepts such as marriage and property are also institutions
which should assist a nation develop. The perversion is that people in contemporary society
have taken the state and the nation to be synonymous. As a consequence the state took over
the responsibility from the other institutions therefore seeming to appear solely responsible for
the welfare of the nation. When in reality the individual has lost all sense of social
responsibility and looks to the state for appeasement of their desires. With the advent of
mass media (an institution that should assist a nations development) has extrapolated the
problem. Free media has now become an institution, which has lost all sense of national
responsibility due to the concept of corporate profitability as being the sole indicator of
prosperity. The media continues to give the impression that it is the state, which is solely
responsible for all of society’s ills and that its position is to merely highlight problems and
achievements with the added ingredient of profit. This growing tendency for the individual
and other national institutions to shift responsibility to the state is damaging to the
development of the nation, as it distorts responsibility and accountability.

We must aim to approach all national achievements and problems with the intent to re-
distribute responsibility back across society and rediscover the true position of the state. All
other national institutions must take on their particular responsibility and fulfil their part for
the betterment of the nation. The state in its current climate is highly confused and therefore
needs to be redeveloped. The position of the state is to merely create an environment where
individuals are provided with the bare minimum for survival from which to create an
environment whereby all are encouraged to achieve their own potential on an individual as
well as social level. The state must project upon society certain eternal values that must be
present in all, values such as the importance of the family unit, full employment, and

1
© 2007, Sachin Nandha, www.globalchange.org.uk

encourage policies that benefit the whole, and not the few with power and influence. In other
words a ‘redistribution’ of power and responsibility back to the individual, and other
institutions is required.

The state must be a plural entity. Just as an individual is a son to his father/mother, father to
his son/daughter, friend to his/her friend, brother to a sister, colleague to other employees,
etc. the state must also take on different approaches and responsibilities in correlation to the
situation. It must fulfil all its designated roles, knowing that when it does not evolve it will
only create disharmony in society. I do not follow the philosophy that suggests that where
there is diversity, conflict is inevitable. Conflict only arises out of neglect and lack of true
understanding. Therefore a movement is required which enables individuals at a grass root
level to take back some of their responsibility from the state while reclaiming accountability
and fulfilling their part to better the nation.

Issues such as referendums on the Euro should always be questioned. The state is
responsible for the betterment of the nation as a whole, the majority of its subjects are in no
position, factually or intellectually to make such holistic decisions, the notion that the
“majority has spoken” cannot be accepted whole heartedly due to the simple fact that the
majority may not know what is good for the nation. Religion and state must always be
separated; the state must allow every religion to flourish in society as long as no religion
promotes divisive measures and a philosophy, which is against the betterment of the whole.
Therefore this movement aims to promote a way of thinking that shall promote religious
freedom as long as that freedom is not abused and encroaches on another’s freedom. The
state must take it upon itself to uphold the highest level of conduct, which it wants its subjects
to adhere too, therefore there, must be no contradiction at the highest level of society.

I think we as a citizens need to re-start the debate about the relationship between the nation
and its State. If we do not address this enquiry with sufficient depth, I firmly believe that we
will end up with a national catastrophe, and a nation without the means to cope.