Ethnonationalism: Loyalty to Nation Over State

Why do some people feel a deeper bond with their ethnic kin than with the country printed on their passport? This question sits at the heart of ethnonationalism, one of the most powerful and disruptive forces in modern politics. It explains why a Naga in the hills feels distinct from the Indian mainstream, why the Basques of Spain demand a homeland, and why so many of the world’s conflicts since the nineteenth century have revolved around the tension between ethnic groups and the states that govern them. Understanding ethnonationalism is essential for anyone studying comparative politics, because it challenges the very assumption that a state and its people are one and the same.

What is ethnonationalism? 🔗

Ethnonationalism, also called ethnic nationalism, is a form of nationalism in which the nation is defined in terms of ethnicity. The loyalty here is directed not toward the state, but toward a human grouping that believes it shares common ancestry. The political scientist Walker Connor, who is widely credited with coining and clarifying the term, captured this idea precisely: a nation, in his words, is a group of people who believe they are ancestrally related, and nationalism is loyalty to that nation rather than to one’s country.

What matters is not whether the shared ancestry is scientifically true, but whether people believe in it. As one scholarly account notes, ethnonationalism rests on a myth of common ancestry that rarely finds support in genetic evidence. DNA studies repeatedly show that populations are far more mixed than nationalist myths suggest. Yet the conviction that one’s group is distinct and pure is emotional and intuitive, which is exactly why it persists even when facts contradict it.

The blood-bond and the myth of common descent 🔗

The emotional core of ethnonationalism is the sense of a blood-bond, the feeling that members of the group are extended family. This is what makes it so potent. People are willing to make sacrifices for kin that they would never make for an abstract state. The bond is built around markers like a shared language, religion, customs, historical memory, and a perceived connection to a particular territory. Together these elements create a powerful sense of “us” against everyone else, and this in-group solidarity can be mobilised quickly when the group feels threatened.

Ethnonationalism versus patriotism 🔗

The clearest way to grasp ethnonationalism is to contrast it with patriotism. Both involve loyalty, but they point in different directions. Patriotism is loyalty to the state, its institutions, its laws, and its ideals. It is a civic attachment, available in principle to anyone who lives within the state’s borders, regardless of their ancestry. Ethnonationalism, by contrast, is loyalty to the ethnic group, an attachment rooted in who your ancestors were rather than which government you live under.

Connor argued that confusing these two loyalties has caused enormous muddle in scholarship. He insisted that referring to civic loyalty as a form of “nationalism” mixes up two fundamentally different things, and that those who use the term nationalism to mean civic identity are really confusing patriotism with nationalism. For Connor, the two are different orders of attachment altogether.

When the two loyalties clash 🔗

For a group that dominates a state, the two loyalties can reinforce each other. The ethnically Turkish majority in Turkey or the Castilian majority in Spain can feel both patriotic and ethnonationalist at the same time, because their ethnic group and their state largely overlap. The problem arises for national minorities. As one analysis points out, for groups like the Kurds of Turkey or the Basques of Spain, the two identities can directly clash. Their loyalty to their ethnic group pulls against loyalty to a state they did not choose and in which they feel like outsiders.

Who leads ethnonational movements? 🔗

Ethnonational movements are typically led by national minorities. These are groups that are distinct in language, culture, or history, and that often see themselves as having a historic claim to a particular homeland. The concept of the ethnonational group is useful here: scholars use it to describe a group unified by both a common ethnicity and a national identity that asserts a claim to a territorial homeland. The political philosopher Will Kymlicka has described many such groups as peoples who once had their own states but now find themselves as minorities inside a larger state, often through conquest, annexation, or unification.

This historical dimension is crucial. Ethnonational movements rarely demand something entirely new. Instead, they frame their goals as the recovery of something lost, a homeland that was once theirs or an autonomy that was taken away. This sense of historical grievance gives the movement moral force and emotional staying power.

What such movements demand 🔗

The demands of ethnonational movements usually fall along a spectrum. At the milder end, groups seek cultural recognition and protection for their language and traditions. Further along, they demand political autonomy, such as self-governing arrangements within a federal structure. At the most intense end, they push for full independence and a separate state. Movements frequently emerge in response to a perceived threat, and ethnonationalism often surfaces when a group feels its identity is under attack, leading to movements that seek greater autonomy or independence.

Ethnonational movements in the Indian context 🔗

With its extraordinary diversity of languages, religions, and cultures, the subcontinent has seen many ethnonational movements. These movements challenge the state’s principle of “unity in diversity” by asserting that some groups are distinct enough to deserve special status, autonomy, or even separation. The state has responded with a mix of force and accommodation, and the results have shaped the political map we know today.

The Naga movement 🔗

The Naga people of the northeast represent one of the oldest and most persistent ethnonational struggles. The Naga National Council was formed in the early twentieth century to advocate for a separate Naga homeland, built on the argument that the Nagas had a distinct culture, language, and history that set them apart. Even after the creation of the state of Nagaland in 1963 and repeated negotiations, the demand for greater autonomy has continued. The 2015 Framework Agreement with the National Socialist Council of Nagaland reflects how the state has increasingly turned to political dialogue rather than military force alone to address these aspirations.

The Khalistan movement 🔗

In Punjab, the demand for a separate Sikh state called Khalistan became one of the most intense ethnonational conflicts in the country’s modern history. The Khalistan movement sought to establish a sovereign state for Sikhs in the Punjab region, drawing on a distinct religious and cultural identity combined with grievances over river-water sharing, agricultural policy, and a sense of political marginalisation. The movement escalated dramatically in the 1980s, leading to Operation Blue Star in 1984 and a prolonged period of insurgency that was brought under control by the early 1990s.

The Mizo and Bodo movements 🔗

The Mizos launched the Mizo National Front movement in the 1960s, initially seeking independence. The twenty-year insurgency ended with the Mizoram Peace Accord in 1986, which granted full statehood and brought movement leaders into mainstream politics, making it one of the more successful examples of accommodation. The Bodos of Assam, a tribal community, have similarly mobilised since the 1960s for greater autonomy and protection of their cultural identity, gaining momentum under the All Bodo Students Union. The creation of new states such as Meghalaya and the use of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which allows autonomous district councils to govern tribal areas, show how India has tried to channel ethnonational aspirations into its federal framework.

The Gorkhaland movement 🔗

The Gorkhaland movement in the Darjeeling hills of West Bengal seeks a separate state for the region’s Nepali-speaking population. Built around a distinct Gorkha linguistic and cultural identity, the demand has periodically resurfaced under leaders advocating for recognition within the Indian union. It illustrates that ethnonationalism need not always aim at full independence; often the goal is a state of one’s own within the existing constitutional order.

The theoretical debate 🔗

Scholars have long debated how to understand ethnonationalism. Connor took the striking position that all nationalism is ethnically predicated, meaning that even seemingly civic nations rest on an ethnic core. Other thinkers, such as Anthony D. Smith, agreed that there is an ethnic foundation to most nations but argued that Connor focused too narrowly on subjective feelings. Smith urged greater attention to the ethno-symbolic elements like flags, monuments, and customs, and the institutional elements like rituals and laws that give a nation its shape.

This debate connects to a larger division between primordialists, who see ethnic ties as deep and ancient, and modernists and constructionists, who see nations as relatively recent creations. Even some critics question whether a purely civic, non-ethnic attachment to the state is truly possible, suggesting that many nationalisms present themselves in civic costume while remaining ethnic underneath. These debates matter because they shape how governments respond: if ethnic identity is dismissed as a temporary nuisance that will fade with development, policy tends to fail.

Why ethnonationalism endures 🔗

Ethnonationalism remains relevant because the emotional bond it draws on is remarkably durable. States hoped that economic growth, education, and modernisation would dissolve ethnic loyalties into a shared civic identity. Instead, increased contact between groups has often sharpened ethnic self-awareness rather than erasing it. When a group feels its language, land, or way of life is under pressure, ethnonationalism offers a ready vocabulary of resistance and belonging. This is why it continues to drive politics across the world, from the Basque country to the hills of the northeast, and why comparative politics treats it as a permanent feature of the modern landscape rather than a passing phase.

What do you think? If almost every nation rests on some ethnic core, can a truly “civic” state, loyal only to shared values rather than shared ancestry, ever fully exist? And when a national minority demands autonomy, where should a democracy draw the line between accommodating identity and protecting its territorial integrity?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_nationalism
2. https://unherd.com/2026/04/why-ethnonationalism-endures/
3. https://sociology.iresearchnet.com/sociology-of-race/ethnonationalism/
4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234079215_Conceptualizing_nationalism_an_introduction_to_Walker_Connors_work
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnonational_group
6. https://fiveable.me/key-terms/ap-hug/ethnonationalism
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naga_nationalism
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalistan_movement
9. https://www.mha.gov.in/en/commoncontent/north-east-division
10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30527218_Ethnonationalism_in_the_Contemporary_World_Walker_Connor_and_the_Study_of_Nationalism
11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314952156_Ethnonationalism_in_the_contemporary_world_Walker_Connor_and_the_study_of_nationalism_book_review