essay about nation building

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

nation building

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

nation building , a concerted project to construct or rebuild a nation-state and its underlying institutions and sense of community . The objective of nation building can be to create a cohesive nation-state that never existed or that never properly functioned or to rebuild one that has collapsed or has been destroyed. Generally speaking, nation building is not performed as a purely altruistic endeavor. States engaged in nation building abroad are generally motivated by some strategic objectives of their own, such as advancing their own wealth, security, or international standing. While nation building is mainly carried out by sovereign states, some civil society and international organizations (such as the Ford Foundation and the United Nations ) can also engage in it, sometimes under the less controversial rubric of international development.

Despite its name, the process of nation building is fundamentally two-pronged and involves the creation of a state and a corresponding nation, and their mutual alignment. Thus, nation building is both an institutional and a cultural project. Critiques of the concept of nation building are diverse , ranging from the argument that it is mainly an exercise in imperialism to the idea that nations are never truly purposely created but emerge organically.

At the most basic level, the state-building component of nation building involves creating security conditions so that the state can effectively claim a monopoly of power within its own territory—the very definition of the state , according to the German sociologist Max Weber . However, modern state institutions are not limited to having an effective army and police force ; the state is expected to fulfill other fundamental needs of its population , including providing basic infrastructure , health care, education , and the necessary conditions for a functioning economy.

Besides creating a functioning state apparatus, nation building aims at creating the nation itself, meaning a collective identity that corresponds, if imperfectly, with the boundaries of the sovereign state. As the political scientist Benedict Anderson has argued, cultural institutions, in particular mass media such as newspapers, can play a key role in creating the shared “imagined community” of the nation. Many scholars also highlight the critical role of education in nation building, because of its capacity to instill a sense of common identity and destiny in a whole generation. Various cultural initiatives can foster national identity; some can be implemented quickly, such as creating a new flag or anthem , while others, such as changes in education or the media, require a long-term commitment. In the nation-state paradigm , the nation and the state are closely intertwined and mutually reinforcing: the nation legitimizes the state and transforms it into a meaningful entity, while the state fulfills the essential needs and future of the nation and provides it with collective agency on the domestic and world stage.

The process of nation building can also be destructive of other identities (such as ethnic, regional, or religious identities) that resist, or are not easily subsumed under, the new national identity. Following the French Revolution , for example, the nascent French Republic embarked on a large-scale project to unify the country around a sole common language ( French ) and shared republican institutions and ideals. This French exercise in nation building, in which education played a key role, created the foundation of a rich national identity that endures to this day, but it also destroyed or diminished, often to the point of folkloric irrelevance, many regional cultures and languages, such as Breton and Occitan . Not all nation-building projects are this exclusionary, however, and it is possible to foster a national identity that can accommodate pluralism and difference.

Following the end of World War II , the United States led two of the most important exercises in nation building ever pursued—namely, the democratic reconstruction of postwar Germany and Japan. Both examples set the standard for post-conflict nation building, as they showcased the possibility of creating long-lasting and self-governing polities even after almost complete destruction and years of totalitarian rule. In both cases, nation building required investments and coordinated efforts in ensuring security, reconstructing the countries’ infrastructures and economies, providing humanitarian relief, creating a working civil administration , and creating the cultural and institutional conditions for democratic rule .

After the end of the Cold War , nation-building projects multiplied with the emergence of a plethora of new but weak states. In the 1990s the U.S. government alone, under the Bill Clinton administration, engaged in an average of two nation-building exercises per year. The concept of nation building was popularized in the early 2000s following the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War , in which the United States led an occupation of both countries and sought to transform both into sustainable democracies . While nation-building efforts were initially more successful in Afghanistan, they ultimately failed, as the Taliban recaptured the country in 2021 and reestablished its theocratic regime. More than two decades after the U.S.-led invasion, Iraq is still struggling to establish both a competent state serving its population and a nation that transcends ethnic and sectarian fault lines. While nation building itself has far from disappeared, its popularity faded following these two failed attempts.

Beyond Intractability

The Hyper-Polarization Challenge to the Conflict Resolution Field We invite you to participate in an online exploration of what those with conflict and peacebuilding expertise can do to help defend liberal democracies and encourage them live up to their ideals.

Follow BI and the Hyper-Polarization Discussion on BI's New Substack Newsletter .

Hyper-Polarization, COVID, Racism, and the Constructive Conflict Initiative Read about (and contribute to) the  Constructive Conflict Initiative  and its associated Blog —our effort to assemble what we collectively know about how to move beyond our hyperpolarized politics and start solving society's problems. 

By Carolyn Stephenson

January 2005  

Introduction

Nation-building is a normative concept that means different things to different people. The latest conceptualization is essentially that nation-building programs are those in which dysfunctional or unstable or "failed states" or economies are given assistance in the development of governmental infrastructure, civil society, dispute resolution mechanisms, as well as economic assistance, in order to increase stability. Nation-building generally assumes that someone or something is doing the building intentionally.

But it is important to look at the evolution of theories of nation-building and at the other concepts which it has both supplanted and included. Many people believe that nation-building is evolutionary rather than revolutionary, that is takes a long time and is a social process that cannot be jump-started from outside. The evolution of the Italian city-states into a nation, the German city-states into the Zollverein customs union and later a nation, the multiple languages and cultural groups in France into the nation of France, the development of China from the warring kingdoms, took a very long time, and were the result, not only of political leadership, but of changes in technology and economic processes (the agricultural and then industrial revolutions), as well as communication, culture and civil society, and many other factors.

In what Seymour Martin Lipset has called The First New Nation , the United States, at first 13 colonies with diverse origins, came together to form a new nation and state.[1] That state, like so many in contemporary times, faced the prospect of secession and disintegration in 1865, and it took another 100 years for the integration of black and white, North and South, East and West. This was a new type of nation-state, because its people were not all of the same ethnicity, culture, and language, as had been thought to be the case in the early defining of the concept of nation-state.

But nation-building by one nation may destroy others. In the building of the US nation and others, aboriginal nations were erased or marginalized. The Six-Nations Confederacy of the Iriquois had existed before the US nation (and was thought by some to be a model for it). Today many "First Nations" are in the process of nation re-building, re-building the social, cultural, economic and political foundations for what is left of self-governance. First nations seek to re-build cultural identities as nations in order to challenge their disintegration by others in the creation of their own states.

Association of First Nations National Chief Matthew Coon cited the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development (released in 2001 by the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard) proposal of a Nation Building Model of Economic Development. The project defined Nation-building as: "Equipping First Nations with the institutional foundation necessary to increase their capacity to effectively assert self-governing powers on behalf of their own economic, social and cultural objectives." [2] The study identified four core elements of a nation building model: 1) genuine self rule (First Nations making decisions about resource allocations, project funding and development strategy), 2) creating effective governing institutions (non-politicized dispute resolution mechanisms and getting rid of corruption), 3) cultural match (giving first nations institutions legitimacy in the eyes of their citizens), and the need for a strategic orientation (long-term planning).

One of the reasons for the difficulties of what many consider "failed states" is that some peoples who had been integrated were taken apart by European colonialism, while others who were separate peoples were integrated together in new states not based in common identities. Particularly in Africa and the Middle East, new political borders paid little attention to national identities in the creation of new states. Thus the notion of nation-state, a nation which developed the governmental apparatus of a state, was often nonsense. While in Europe nation-building historically preceded state-building, in post-colonial states, state-building preceded nation-building. The aftermath of colonialism led to the need for nation-building.

What IS nation-building?

A 2003 study by James Dobbins and others for the RAND Corporation defines nation-building as "the use of armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy."[3] Comparing seven historical cases: Germany, Japan, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, "in which American military power has been used in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin democratization elsewhere around the world since World War II," they review the lessons learned. This definition of nation-building is substantially different than those which see nation-building as the province of people within a nation. The definition centers around the building of democratic processes, but many argue that the use of the military to bring about democracy may be inherently contradictory. Whether nation-building can be imposed from outside is one of the central questions in this field, and whether that can be done by the military is a further part of the question.

What is a nation?

To understand the concept of nation-building, one needs to have some definition of what a nation is. Early conceptions of nation defined it as a group or race of people who shared history, traditions, and culture, sometimes religion, and usually language. Thus the United Kingdom comprises four nations, the English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh. The people of a nation generally share a common national identity , and part of nation-building is the building of that common identity. Some distinguish between an ethnic nation, based in (the social construction of) race or ethnicity, and a civic nation, based in common identity and loyalty to a set of political ideas and institutions, and the linkage of citizenship to nationality.

Today the word nation is often used synonymously with state, as in the United Nations. But a state is more properly the governmental apparatus by which a nation rules itself. Max Weber provided the classic definition of the state:

Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Note that "territory" is one of the characteristics of the state. Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it.[4]

In approaching the question of nation-building, and in particular its relationship to state-building, it is important to keep in mind that this definition specifies the legitimate use of force.

The Evolution of Nation-Building Theory

The term nation-building is often used simultaneously with state-building, democratization , modernization, political development, post-conflict reconstruction , and peacebuilding . But each concept is different, though their evolution is intertwined. The concept of nation-building came to be used especially among American political scientists a decade or so after World War II, to describe the greater integration of state and society, as citizenship brought loyalty to the modern nation-state with it. Reinhard Bendix focused on the expansion of citizenship and of rights to political participation. [5] Karl Deutsch focused on the role of social communication and national integration in nation-building in Western societies.[6] Others began to apply it to non-Western societies as well.

Almond and Coleman argued for the functional approach to understand and compare the political systems of developing countries.[7] They argued for the interdependence and multi-functionality of political structures, and argued especially that the input functions of political systems could help to distinguish stages of political development. They defined input functions as: 1) political socialization and recruitment, 2) interest articulation, 3) interest aggregation, and 4) political communication. Output functions were: 5) rule-making, 6) rule application, and 7) rule adjudication. [8] Most nation-building after the end of the Cold War seems to focus more on the output functions.

Lucian Pye linked modernization with Westernization and "the diffusion of a world culture," what we might today call globalization .[9] He identified political development with:

.A world culture based on advanced technology and the spirit of science, on a rational view of life, a secular approach to social relations, a feeling for justice in public affairs, and, above all else, on the acceptance in the political realm that the prime unit of the polity should be the nation-state.[10]

Pye identified multiple meanings of political development, among them:

• as prerequisite to economic development,
• as politics typical of industrial societies,
• as political modernization,
• as administrative and legal development,
• as mass mobilization and participation ,
• as the building of democracy , and
• as stability and orderly change.

He identifies equality as one of the basic themes running through all of these.[11] While nation-building after 9/11 still incorporates many of these meanings of political development, equality does not seem to play a major role in practice.

Dudley Seers, in his presidential address to the Society for International Development in 1969, presaged what has become the concept of human development . He said:

The questions to ask about a country's development are therefore: what has been happening to poverty? What has been happening to unemployment? What has been happening to inequality? If all these have declined from high levels, then beyond doubt this has been a period of development....[12]

In the 1990s the UN Development Program brought out the Human Development Report and the Human Development Index to focus on those aspects of development other than economic, including in the index both health and education. Many UN programs, as well as NGO efforts, focus on these aspects, and the World Bank has begun to focus on poverty, but to date there seems no effort by the US in either Afghanistan or Iraq to include poverty, unemployment, or inequality in nation-building efforts.

Almond and Verba in 1963 introduced the concept of The Civic Culture to the development literature. The civic culture, which combines tradition and modernity, is one of the processes that sustain democracy. Almond and Verba defined as part of this civic culture the obligation to participate and the sense of civic competence and cooperation. They also noted the importance of the role of education in the development of a civic culture.[13] Alexis de Toqueville had noted the importance of associations in sustaining Democracy in America at its earliest stages.[14] Robert Putnam, in exploring the civil traditions in modern Italy that make democracy work, includes in his notion of the civic community: civic engagement, political equality, and solidarity, trust , and tolerance , in addition to associations.[15] He finds the presence of choral societies in Italy, bowling leagues in the US, and other associations, to be important, but in Bowling Alone , finds such associations to be reducing in the US today.

The importance of civil society also became clear as a factor in the movement from authoritarianism toward democracy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe at the end of the Cold War. The role of civil society received much support in early nation-building/democratization efforts in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, but has drastically declined since then. This notion of the importance of civil society as an underpinning to democratic nation-building seems to be given lip-service in current efforts, but in reality it is not seen as significant by nation-builders if one measures this by any spending measure.

If nation-building in the 20th century is to be successful, it may want to return to look at some of its early theorists. The importance of democratic values, of the civic culture and civil society that develop and sustain them, the importance of increasing social, political, and economic equality, and of human development, rather than just economic development or state-building, are key in any successful strategy for long-term democratic nation-building. Nation-building is more than just state-building. To be a sustainable force for peacebuilding, it must incorporate more than just the Western appendages of democracy. Voting systems and free market development and increasing the GNP per capita are not likely to bring stable peace .

Why does nation-building matter?

Nation-building matters to intractable conflict because of the theory that a strong state is necessary in order to provide security , that the building of an integrated national community is important in the building of a state, and that there may be social and economic prerequisites or co-requisites to the building of an integrated national community.

Further, when nation-building implies democratization, there is the further hypothesis known as the democratic peace hypothesis. Originally explicated by Immanuel Kant in the 17th century, the democratic peace hypothesis says that perpetual peace can be achieved by developing a federation or league of free republican nations. Representative democracies, organized in an international organization, would bring peace. Political scientists who have explored this hypothesis have focused on one of two versions: democracies don't make war against each other, or democracies don't initiate war at all. There is certainly evidence of the former, and some evidence of the latter.

The other side of the coin is that nation-building may sometimes be simply another name for external intervention and the extension of empires. If it can be said that failed states are the cause of national, regional, or world security problems, or that human rights abuses are so extensive that the need to overcome them in turn overcomes the traditional sovereignty rights of states under international law , then intervention in the name of nation-building can be seen to be justified. Sometimes nation-building may simply be used as a justification for the expansion of imperial control. So nation-building matters, but what is meant by nation-building matters even more.

What can be done?

The first major question that needs to be asked is whether nation-building should be done at all. In the context of intractable conflict, is nation-building an appropriate method of providing stable peace and a secure community, which can meet the needs of the people within it? There are mixed conclusions here. The democratic peace hypothesis argues that democratic states do not initiate wars, or alternatively, in its more limited version, do not initiate wars against each other. Immanuel Kant's original statement of the hypothesis in his essay on Perpetual Peace in the 17th century argued both for the necessity of republican (or representative democracy) governments, and for their participation in a league of peace, or federation of free nations.[16] This would mean that the simple creation of democratic nations would not be enough; peace would require also the creation of some sort of international governance and international law.

There is disagreement among current theorists of nation-building as to the relationships between the development of a free market economy and the development of democratic participation, as well as over the necessity of building a civil society as a prerequisite for the development of state institutions for democratic participation. Different theories of nation-building emphasize different parts of the arguments. Different versions of nation-building benefit different groups. Some appear to benefit more the outside countries, and/or the international governmental and nongovernmental organizations which are involved. Some benefit elites in the nation being built or rebuilt. Some spread benefits widely in the society; some do not.

Nation-building that will be likely to contribute to stable international peace will need to emphasize the democratic participation of people within the nation to demand rights . It will need to build the society, economy, and polity which will meet the basic needs of the people, so that they are not driven by poverty, inequality, unemployment, on the one hand, or by a desire to compete for resources and power either internally or in the international system. This does means not only producing the formal institutions of democracy, but the underlying culture which recognizes respect for the identities and needs of others both within and outside. It means development of human rights -- political, civil, economic and social, and the rule of law. But it also means development of sewer systems, and roads, and jobs. Perhaps most important, it means the development of education . Nation-building must allow the participation of civil society , and develop democratic state institutions that promote welfare. Democratic state-building is an important part of that. This is a multi-faceted process that will proceed differently in each local context.

WHO? Military or Civilian?

The second major question in what can be done about nation-building is the question (if it should be done) of who should do it, and who CAN effectively do it. The literature is divided over these issues. Clearly the US leadership of the years 2001-4 believes that nation-building in Iraq is primarily the province of the US military. It has shut out even much of the US State Department in this effort, let alone other countries, let alone Iraqis themselves. But the US military itself remains divided on the issue of whether the military should be involved in peacekeeping, peacebuilding, and nation-building. Some argue that this is not the function of the military; it is to exert force, or as retired Colonel Fred Peck announced in an NPR interview October 22, 2001: "Our job is to kill people and smash things." Some argue that this would weaken the military and make them less capable of doing their primary task of defending US national interests. Some argue that the institution that projects force cannot at the same time build peace or build a nation. The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command's "Mission Statement and Commander's Intent" says that it develops competent and adaptive leaders ..., imbu[ing] the qualities and skills necessary to dominate across the spectrum of conflict."[17] Is it possible to dominate across the spectrum of conflict at the same time as helping to build a nation?[18]

There are others in and out of the US military who argue for a kinder, gentler military, and argue that military training needs to be changed to reflect these new tasks. In a 2003 article in The Atlantic Monthly , Robert Kaplan [19] laid out 10 rules for "Managing the World." The first rule: "Produce More Joppolos," refers to Major Victor Joppolo, from John Hersey's novel, A Bell for Adano .[20] Kaplan argues that Joppolo, a US civil affairs officer who became the post-WWII military mayor of Adano, and worked to settle internal disputes, return fishermen to the sea, and find a replacement for the bell Mussolini had melted down for arms, can be a model for soldiers in military occupations and peacemaking operations. US Army Lt. Colonel Patrick Donohoe argues that the Army must prepare leaders for nation building, by providing training in "culture; basic law and civics; city planning and public administration; economics; and ethics," as well as language, and "how a free, democratic government is supposed to work."[21] He argues that ethics training must include knowledge of the Geneva Conventions and the Law of Armed Conflict. While all of these may be important, one is still left with the question of whether the military is the best institution for nation-building.

WHO? The US? or the UN?

Another question is whether an outside country can build a nation in another country. Is nation-building more effectively done by a single country, by the UN or UN-related organizations, by regional organizations, or by some combination of these? Michael Ignatieff, in a cogent article critiquing "nation-building lite" in Afghanistan, prior to the start of the second Iraq war, argues for "imperial nation-building," for the importance of sufficient US application of force and sufficient and much larger application of dollars in development aid to make a difference in a critical period. He acknowledges this as imperialism, arguing that "nation-building is the kind of imperialism you get in a human rights era, a time when great powers believe simultaneously in the right of small nations to govern themselves and in their own right to rule the world."[22] He argues that Afghans "understand the difficult truth that their best hope of freedom lies in a temporary experience of imperial rule."

The 2003 RAND study by James Dobbins and others reviews the lessons learned in US nation-building efforts. Comparing seven historical cases: Germany, Japan, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, "in which American military power has been used in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin democratization elsewhere around the world since World War II,"[23]

Dobbins and colleagues come to the following conclusions:

Dobbins and colleagues recognize the advantages of a multilateral approach, arguing that while it is more complex and time-consuming, it is less expensive for any one participant and, more important, is better at producing both transformation and regional reconciliation. They also recognize the important role of neighboring countries. They make no mention of the US attempt to win hearts and minds in Vietnam.

The United Nations has participated in nation-building efforts both through the Security Council's authorization of peacekeeping missions involving primarily military, but also civilian and police participants as well. Among these have been Cambodia, Angola, and Bosnia in the early 1990s, and Kosovo and East Timor. Some have been more, some less, successful. It has also participated in development and human rights efforts completely aside from peacekeeping. Efforts range from those of UNICEF in fostering children's rights, to the UN Development Program in providing human development aid , to the Ad Hoc Criminal Tribunals on Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, to the World Food Program, to UNESCO's Education for All program. These are also an important component of nation-building. Economic, social, and political development, and institutions which protect human rights and provide for the rule of law, are important not only to post-conflict peacebuilding , but to nation-building at any stage of development or any stage of conflict . And it may well be that the international legitimacy that can be provided by a global institution may be better for nation-building than efforts by any single country, or a regional organization, or a "coalition of the willing." Accusations of "imperial nation-building" are reduced when there is greater international consensus.

But Donini, Niland and Wermester question whether Western approaches, military and technological, can foster just outcomes, whether through individual countries efforts or through UN agencies. They raise questions of how UN agencies and international NGOs interact with national and local communities in the process of providing aid for political reconstruction and human rights development. Can nation-building really come from outside at all? It may be necessary to go back to the debates over the definition and purposes of nation-building to answer that question.

WHO? IGOs , States or NGOs ?

NGOs and state development agencies have also played important roles in nation-building projects. Mary Anderson has argued that foreign development aid has often fostered the propensity for greater conflict rather than reducing it. She urges that state development agencies first be certain to "do no harm."[24] As states began both to realize the costs of development aid, both financial and otherwise, NGOs became increasingly involved. Supposedly NGOs, with smaller budgets and staffs, could have a greater likelihood of actually reaching the needs of people. But both IGOs and NGOs have now become big business, and many now have the same disadvantages of states.

The issue is not so much which agency, but how the agency functions. Does it simply throw money at the problem? Does it exacerbate tensions by providing money or projects unevenly across ethnic groups or regions in such a way as to generate competition or, worse, security fears? Is its presence so big that it overwhelms the local or national governing structures it is trying to nurture? Is it culturally knowledgeable and sensitive? If one of the components of nation-building is to nurture the further development of civil society, how does an outside organization interact with civil society? This brings us to our final question: can nation-building be done by external actors, or is it only effective when done by those whose nation is being built?

WHO? Indigenous or exogenous actors?

Nation-building is an evolutionary process. It takes a long time. One of the problems with outside actors is that they come and they go. While it may be considered useful for an outside military occupation or peacekeeping force to provide the temporary stability and security necessary in order to allow the process of nation-building to proceed, the question of whether this is the best method remains. If a military stays too short a time, expectations of a dependable peace for the foreseeable future may not develop, and thus people will be unlikely to invest in the future. If, on the other hand, a military stays too long, people will rely on the security provided by outsiders and fail to develop their own institutions for providing it.

The same questions may be asked about outside civilian actors, whether a single state, a regional organization, a global organization, or an NGO. While a significant influx of resources may be necessary, especially in the period immediately following a violent conflict, the right amount, the right methods, and the right length of time are critical. In general, it appears that nation-building is best left in the hands of those whose nation it is or will be, and that outside organizations support, rather than direct, nation-building.

Arguing for the importance of indigenous nation-building does not mean that outside actors should ignore the process. If an outside military is to be involved, it must be funded and supplied sufficiently so that it can bring order and security following conflict. Or it must stay out. Similarly, if there is to be outside civilian involvement, whether state-based, IGO or NGO, it must also have sufficient funding and technical skills in order to provide what is needed and to stay the course. Arguing for the indignity of the process should not be an excuse for exiting the process where there is need for outside help.

[1] Lipset, Seymour M.(1979). The First New Nation .W.W. Norton & Co. Inc.

[2] Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development. Available online at http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/hpaied/res-main.htm . Accessed Feb 9, 2005.

[3] Dobbins, James. (2003). "Nation-Building: the Inescapable Responsibility of the World's Only Superpower." RAND Review, Summer 2003.

[4] Weber, Max. "Politics as a Vocation," in Gerth and Mills. From Max Weber. New York, 1946. 48.

[5] Reinhard Bendix, Nationbuilding and Citizenship (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977).

[6] Karl Deutsch, "Nation-Building and National Development: Some Issues for Political Research," in Karl Deutsch and William Foltz, eds., Nationbuilding (New York: Atherton, 1963) 7-8.

[7] Almond, Gabriel A. and James S. Coleman (eds.) The Politics of the Developing Areas. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960.

[8] Ibid, p 17.

[9] Pye, Lucian W. Aspects of Political Development. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1966.

[10] Ibid, p. 9

[11] Ibid, pp. 33-45

[12] SeErs, Dudley, "The Meaning of Development," in Uphoff, Norman T. and Warren F. Ilchman (eds.). The Political Economy of Development. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972. p. 124.

[13] Almond, Gabriel A. and Sidney Verba. The Civic Culture. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1963, pp. 315-324.

[14] Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America . Hardcover ed. New York: Signet Books, 2001.

[15] Putnam, Robert D. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993, pp. 86-91.

[16] Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace, and Other Essays on Politics, History, and Morals. Hacket Publishing Company, 1983.

[17] As cited in Donohoe, "Preparing Leaders for Nationbuilding"Military Review. http://www.Leavenworth.army.mil/milrev/download/English/MayJun04/don.pdf

[18] Army Training and Doctrine Command, "Mission Statement and Commander's Intent," on-line at http://www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/regs/r870-1.pdf , accessed 16 April 2004.

[19] Robert Kaplan, "Supremacy by Stealth," The Atlantic Monthly (July-August 2003): 65.

[20] John Hersey, A Bell for Adano. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1944.

[21] Donohoe, Patrick. "Preparing Leaders for Nationbuilding"Military Review. http://www.Leavenworth.army.mil/milrev/download/English/MayJun04/don.pdf

[22] Michael Ignatieff. "Nation-Building Lite," New York Times Magazine, 28 July 2002.

[23] Dobbins, James. (2003). "Nation-Building: the Inescapable Responsibility of the World's Only Superpower." RAND Review, Summer 2003.

[24] Anderson, Mary. "Do No Harm." Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1999.

Use the following to cite this article: Stephenson, Carolyn . "Nation Building." Beyond Intractability . Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: January 2005 < http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/nation-building >.

Additional Resources

The intractable conflict challenge.

Our inability to constructively handle intractable conflict is the most serious, and the most neglected, problem facing humanity. Solving today's tough problems depends upon finding better ways of dealing with these conflicts.   More...

Selected Recent BI Posts Including Hyper-Polarization Posts

• Mark Gerzon and Mesa Sebree -- Towards a Polycrisis Consciousness - Part 2 -- To address the polycrisis, it is necessary to "focus on part of the polycrisis but with an awareness of the whole." Among Gerzon and Sebree's several insightful suggestions: forget optimism and pessimism, focusing instead on "possibility."
• More responses to Friends and Family + Democracy Subversion from Rosa Zubizarreta -- Rosa Zubizarreta's thoughts about better ways to talk across differences without destroying relationships, and also how we can stop a repeat of World War II before it is too late.
• Mark Gerzon and Mesa Sebree -- Towards a Polycrisis Consciousness - Part 1 -- Gerzon and Sebree explain what the "polycrisis" is, and ten of the individual crises that interact to create it. In part 2, they will explain what can be done to constructively address this unprecedented challenge to human well being, even survival.

Get the Newsletter Check Out Our Quick Start Guide

Educators Consider a low-cost BI-based custom text .

Constructive Conflict Initiative

Join Us in calling for a dramatic expansion of efforts to limit the destructiveness of intractable conflict.

Things You Can Do to Help Ideas

Practical things we can all do to limit the destructive conflicts threatening our future.

Conflict Frontiers

A free, open, online seminar exploring new approaches for addressing difficult and intractable conflicts. Major topic areas include:

Scale, Complexity, & Intractability

Massively Parallel Peacebuilding

Authoritarian Populism

Constructive Confrontation

Conflict Fundamentals

An look at to the fundamental building blocks of the peace and conflict field covering both “tractable” and intractable conflict.

Beyond Intractability / CRInfo Knowledge Base

Home / Browse | Essays | Search | About

BI in Context

Links to thought-provoking articles exploring the larger, societal dimension of intractability.

Colleague Activities

Information about interesting conflict and peacebuilding efforts.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Beyond Intractability or the Conflict Information Consortium.

Beyond Intractability 

Unless otherwise noted on individual pages, all content is... Copyright © 2003-2022 The Beyond Intractability Project c/o the Conflict Information Consortium All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission.

Guidelines for Using Beyond Intractability resources.

Citing Beyond Intractability resources.

Photo Credits for Homepage, Sidebars, and Landing Pages

Contact Beyond Intractability    Privacy Policy The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project  Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess , Co-Directors and Editors  c/o  Conflict Information Consortium Mailing Address: Beyond Intractability, #1188, 1601 29th St. Suite 1292, Boulder CO 80301, USA Contact Form

Powered by  Drupal

production_1

Essay on Role of Youths in Nation Building for Students and Children

500 words essay on role of youths in nation building.

It is a well-known fact that the youth of any country is a great asset. They are indeed the future of the country and represent it at every level. The role of youths in nation-building is more important than you might think. In other words, the intelligence and work of the youth will take the country on the pathway of success. As every citizen is equally responsible, the youth is too. They are the building blocks of a country.

Role of Youth

The youth is important because they will be our future. Today they might be our partners, tomorrow they will go on to become leaders. The youths are very energetic and enthusiastic. They have the ability to learn and adapt to the environment . Similarly, they are willing to learn and act on it as well to achieve their goals.

Our youth can bring social reform and improvement in society. We cannot make do without the youth of a country. Furthermore, the nation requires their participation to achieve the goals and help in taking the country towards progress.

Likewise, we see how the development of any country requires active participation from the youth. It does not matter which field we want to progress in, whether it is the technical field or sports field, youth is needed. It is up to us how to help the youth in playing this role properly. We must make all the youth aware of their power and the role they have to play in nation-building.

Ways to Help the Youth

There are many ways in which we can help the youth of our country to achieve their potential. For that, the government must introduce programs that will help in fighting off issues like unemployment, poor education institutes and more to help them prosper without any hindrance.

Similarly, citizens must make sure to encourage our youth to do better in every field. When we constantly discourage our youth and don’t believe in them, they will lose their spark. We all must make sure that they should be given the wind beneath their wings to fly high instead of bringing them down by tying chains to their wings.

Furthermore, equal opportunities must be provided for all irrespective of caste, creed, gender , race, religion and more. There are various issues of nepotism and favoritism that is eating away the actual talent of the country. This must be done away with as soon as possible. We must make sure that every youth has the chance to prove themselves worthy and that must be offered equally to all.

In short, our youth has the power to build a nation so we must give them the opportunity. They are the future and they have the perspective which the older generations lack. Their zeal and enthusiasm must be channelized properly to help a nation prosper and flourish.

FAQ on Essay on Role of Youths in Nation Building

Q.1 What role does youth play in nation-building?

A.1 The youth plays a great role in nation-building. It has the power to help a country develop and move towards progress. It also is responsible for bringing social reform within a country. The youth of a country determine the future of a nation.

Q.2 How can we help youth?

A.2 As well all know youth is facing too many problems nowadays. We need to give them equal opportunities in every field so they can succeed well. They must be given all the facilities and also encouraged to take the challenge to achieve success.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Politics — Nation Building

Essays on Nation Building

Nation building is the process of constructing or structuring a national identity and promoting a sense of unity and solidarity among citizens within a country. It involves the development and implementation of policies and strategies aimed at fostering social, economic, and political progress. Nation building is crucial for the stability and prosperity of a country, as it contributes to the overall well-being and advancement of its people.

Importance of the Topic

The topic of nation building is of utmost importance, as it directly impacts the growth and development of a nation. It encompasses various aspects of society, including education, infrastructure, politics, culture, and environment. By understanding the different factors that contribute to nation building, individuals and leaders can work towards creating a stronger and more unified society.

Advice on Choosing a Topic

When choosing a nation building essay topic, it is important to consider the specific area of interest and relevance to the current social and political climate. It is also important to consider the potential impact of the chosen topic on the overall development of the nation. Additionally, it is beneficial to select a topic that allows for in-depth research and analysis, as this will provide a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.

Nation Building Essay Topics

• The Role of Education in Nation Building
• The Impact of Infrastructure Development on Nation Building
• The Role of Political Stability in Nation Building
• The Importance of National Identity in Nation Building
• The Role of Technology in Nation Building
• The Impact of Economic Development on Nation Building
• The Role of Social Cohesion in Nation Building
• The Importance of Environmental Sustainability in Nation Building
• The Role of Cultural Heritage in Nation Building
• The Impact of Globalization on Nation Building
• The Role of Gender Equality in Nation Building
• The Importance of Good Governance in Nation Building
• The Impact of Media and Information on Nation Building
• The Role of Religion in Nation Building
• The Importance of Healthcare in Nation Building
• The Impact of Urbanization on Nation Building
• The Role of Civic Engagement in Nation Building
• The Importance of Peace and Security in Nation Building
• The Impact of Migration on Nation Building
• The Role of Indigenous Peoples in Nation Building
• The Importance of Human Rights in Nation Building
• The Impact of International Relations on Nation Building
• The Role of Sports and Recreation in Nation Building
• The Importance of Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Nation Building
• The Impact of Climate Change on Nation Building
• The Role of Agriculture in Nation Building
• The Importance of Law and Justice in Nation Building
• The Impact of Immigration on Nation Building
• The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations in Nation Building
• The Importance of History and Heritage in Nation Building

Nation building is a complex and multifaceted process that requires the concerted efforts of individuals, communities, and governments. By exploring the various aspects of nation building through essay topics such as education, infrastructure, political stability, and cultural identity, individuals can gain a deeper understanding of the challenges and opportunities for nation building. It is essential to recognize the importance of nation building in shaping the future of a country and to actively engage in efforts to promote unity, progress, and prosperity.

Nation-building Process

How economic growth, housing, and defense played a role in singapore' s nation building process, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

India is not a Nation of Many States But a State of Many Nations

The history of the building of the nation of america, the task of a reader to a narrative, the frederick c. robie house, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Long Lasting Effects of Colonialism in South Africa

Jim wallis: taking steps towards truer living, the association of southeast asian nations, federalism - the way to success for myanmar, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Two Root Causes for Undevelopment of Philippines as a Nation

What makes a nation: unity, identity, and strength, relevant topics.

• Political Corruption
• Anti Federalist
• American Ideals
• Public Service
• Interest Groups
• Democratic Party
• Andrew Jackson
• Abraham Lincoln

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law

International Relations

• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Nation-Building

Introduction, reference works: concepts and definitions.

• Structural Explanations
• State-Planned Policies
• Third-Party Nation-Building
• Contingency, Events, and Demonstration Effects
• Seminal Case Studies
• State Formation and Social Order
• Self-Determination Movements
• Public Goods Provision

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Nations and Nationalism
• State Theory in International Relations

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Crisis Bargaining
• History of Brazilian Foreign Policy (1808 to 1945)
• Indian Foreign Policy
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Nation-Building by Harris Mylonas LAST REVIEWED: 24 September 2020 LAST MODIFIED: 24 September 2020 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199743292-0217

Nation-building may be defined as the process through which the boundaries of the modern state and those of the national community become congruent. The desired outcome is to achieve national integration ( Reference Works: Concepts and Definitions ). The major divide in the literature centers on the causal path that leads to national integration. Thus, nation-building has been theorized as a structural process intertwined with industrialization, urbanization, social mobilization, etc. ( Structural Explanations ); as the result of deliberate state policies that aim at the homogenization of a state along the lines of a specific constitutive story—that can and often does change over time and under certain conditions ( State-Planned Policies ); as the product of top-bottom processes that could originate from forces outside of the boundaries of the relevant state; and as the product of bottom-up processes that do not require any state intervention to come about ( Contingency, Events, and Demonstration Effects ). Since the emergence of nationalism as the dominant ideology to legitimate authority and the template of the nation-state as an organizational principle of the international system, state elites have pursued different policies toward the various unassimilated groups within their territorial boundaries ( Seminal Case Studies ) with variable consequences ( Nation-Building and Its Consequences ). Thus, scholars have suggested that the nation-building experience of each state—or lack thereof—has had an impact on patterns of State Formation and Social Order , Self-Determination Movements , War Onset , and Public Goods Provision .

The concept of nation-building cannot be understood without the help of certain key concepts such as the nation, national identity, nation-state, and nationalism. The term “nation” has been defined by multiple philosophers, scholars, and practitioners. These definitions range from essentialist ones that reify certain characteristics as purely national ones ( Herder 2004 , Fichte 2008 ) to more constructivist ones highlighting collective ascription as a key element for the existence of a nation ( Renan 1995 , Anderson 1983 ). Tension exists between scholars who see the emergence of modern nations as a natural outgrowth from centuries of development and those who understand national identity as a modern social construct. Naturally, most nationalists themselves adopt a primordialist understanding of nationhood but prominent scholars also highlight the ethnic origins of modern nations ( Smith 1986 ). Modernization scholars ( Gellner 2006 , Anderson 1983 ) and, later on, various strands of constructivists ( Laitin 2007 , Brubaker 1996 ) have pointed out the limitations of the primordialist view. The view of nations being the natural outgrowth of premodern ethnies often assumes phenotypical commonalities that do not correspond to realities on the ground. Moreover, constructivists echo Renan’s critique that shared ethnic attributes do not necessarily mean a shared national identity or imply anything about loyalty to a nation. Finally, a primordialist perspective that essentializes attributes cannot help us explain identity change ( Laitin 2007 ) or the timing of “national awakenings.” Regardless of the definition of the nation and debates about the origins of nationalism, most scholars agree that nationalism—the “political principle which holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent” ( Gellner 2006 , see p. 1)—is one of the most potent ideologies in modern times. In fact, what differentiates an ethnic group from a stateless national group is the fact that the former is not motivated by a nationalist ideology, namely the belief that the world is divided into national units (“nation-states”), that the primary loyalty should be to the nation and not to the family, the kinship group, or some other local or supranational unit, accompanied by a claim to sovereignty over a territorially bounded homeland. Nationalism takes different forms depending on the position that the group making the claim to sovereignty currently occupies in relation to other groups ( Hechter 2000 ).

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism . London: Verso, 1983.

Anderson introduces an influential definition of nationalism that focuses on the constructed nature of nations, calling them “imagined communities.” He defines the nation as an imagined impersonal community, defined by its common history and perceived distinctiveness, that is believed to exercise the collective right to sovereign control over a given territory.

Brubaker, Rogers. Nationalism Refrained: Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511558764

Brubaker’s theme is the nationalization of the political sphere. He highlights the dynamic interaction in the triadic nexus involving national minorities, nationalizing states, and external national homelands. The three entities are far from fixed according to Brubaker, who invites us to stop treating the “nation” as an entity and approach it as “an institutionalized form.”

Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. Addresses to the German Nation . Edited and translated by Gregory Moore. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Fichte (1808) defined the nation by objective criteria such as shared attributes. For Fichte, language is a natural phenomenon. Indeed, the possession of a shared language defines the natural boundaries of a Volk or a Nation. Fichte’s writings developed in reaction to the occupation of German territories by Napoleon’s forces.

Gellner, Ernest. Nations and Nationalism . 2d ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006.

This pathbreaking book was originally published in 1983. Gellner famously defined nationalism as “primarily a political principle that holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent” (p. 1). He emphasized the role of industrialization in the emergence and spread of nationalism through the introduction of mass schooling and assimilation into a high culture.

Hechter, Michael. Containing Nationalism . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Hechter defines nations as “territorially concentrated ethnic groups” (p. 14). He focuses on the transition from indirect to direct rule and identifies different types of nationalism: State-Building Nationalism, Peripheral Nationalism, Irredentist Nationalism, Unification Nationalism, and Patriotism. Hechter, echoing Gellner, defines nationalism as “a collective action designed to render the boundaries of the nation congruent with those of its governance unit” (p. 15).

Herder, Johann Gottfried. Another Philosophy of History and Selected Political Writings . Edited and translated by Ioannis Evrigenis and Daniel Pellerin. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2004.

This is a reliable English translation of Herder’s writings from the second half of the 18th century. Herder argued that “Nature raises families; the most natural state is therefore also one people, with one national character. Through the millennia, this national character is maintained within a people and can be developed most naturally if its native prince so desires, for a people is as much a plant of nature as a family, only with more branches” (p. 128). He is considered as one of the fathers of romantic nationalism.

Laitin, David. Nations, States, and Violence . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Laitin defines the nation as a population with a coordinated set of beliefs about their cultural identities whose representatives claim ownership of a state for them by dint of that coordination either through separation, amalgamation, or return. Benefits of coordination explain the stickiness of these national identities.

Renan, Ernest. “What Is a Nation?” In The Nationalism Reader . Edited by Omar Dahbour and Micheline R. Ishay, 143–155. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1995.

This is an English translation of a lecture that Renan gave in 1882 at Sorbonne University. It presents one of the first coherent and thorough critiques of the romantic nationalist view. Renan reviews the most common markers used to define nations in Europe, such as race, dynasty, language, religion, and geography, and discusses their limitations. For Renan, “the existence of a nation is a daily plebiscite” (p. 154).

Smith, Anthony D. The Ethnic Origins of Nations . Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.

Smith has famously engaged Gellner’s claim that “any old shred and patch would do” for the purposes of constructing a nation. Smith, instead, highlights the importance of ethnic roots in the formation of nations. He takes issue with the emphasis on the exclusively modern quality of nations and argues that most nations have premodern origins in the form of long-standing cultural symbols that are building blocks for modern nation-building.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About International Relations »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Academic Theories of International Relations Since 1945
• Africa, The Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) in
• Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb
• Arab-Israeli Wars
• Arab-Israeli Wars, 1967-1973, The
• Armed Conflicts/Violence against Civilians Data Sets
• Arms Control
• Asylum Policies
• Audience Costs and the Credibility of Commitments
• Authoritarian Regimes
• Balance of Power Theory
• Bargaining Theory of War
• Brazilian Foreign Policy, The Politics of
• Canadian Foreign Policy
• Case Study Methods in International Relations
• Casualties and Politics
• Causation in International Relations
• Central Europe
• Challenge of Communism, The
• China and Japan
• China's Defense Policy
• China’s Foreign Policy
• Chinese Approaches to Strategy
• Cities and International Relations
• Civil Resistance
• Civil Society in the European Union
• Cold War, The
• Colonialism
• Comparative Foreign Policy Security Interests
• Comparative Regionalism
• Complex Systems Approaches to Global Politics
• Conflict Behavior and the Prevention of War
• Conflict Management
• Conflict Management in the Middle East
• Constructivism
• Contemporary Shia–Sunni Sectarian Violence
• Counterinsurgency
• Countermeasures in International Law
• Coups and Mutinies
• Criminal Law, International
• Critical Theory of International Relations
• Cuban Missile Crisis, The
• Cultural Diplomacy
• Cyber Security
• Cyber Warfare
• Decision-Making, Poliheuristic Theory of
• Demobilization, Post World War I
• Democracies and World Order
• Democracy and Conflict
• Democracy in World Politics
• Deterrence Theory
• Development
• Digital Diplomacy
• Diplomacy, Gender and
• Diplomacy, History of
• Diplomacy in the ASEAN
• Diplomacy, Public
• Disaster Diplomacy
• Diversionary Theory of War
• Drone Warfare
• Eastern Front (World War I)
• Economic Coercion and Sanctions
• Economics, International
• Embedded Liberalism
• Emerging Powers and BRICS
• Empirical Testing of Formal Models
• Energy and International Security
• Environmental Peacebuilding
• Epidemic Diseases and their Effects on History
• Ethics and Morality in International Relations
• Ethnicity in International Relations
• European Migration Policy
• European Security and Defense Policy, The
• European Union as an International Actor
• European Union, International Relations of the
• Experiments
• Face-to-Face Diplomacy
• Fascism, The Challenge of
• Feminist Methodologies in International Relations
• Feminist Security Studies
• Food Security
• Forecasting in International Relations
• Foreign Aid and Assistance
• Foreign Direct Investment
• Foreign Policy Decision-Making
• Foreign Policy of Non-democratic Regimes
• Foreign Policy of Saudi Arabia
• Foreign Policy, Theories of
• French Empire, 20th-Century
• From Club to Network Diplomacy
• Future of NATO
• Game Theory and Interstate Conflict
• Gender and Terrorism
• Genocide, Politicide, and Mass Atrocities Against Civilian...
• Genocides, 20th Century
• Geopolitics and Geostrategy
• Germany in World War II
• Global Citizenship
• Global Civil Society
• Global Constitutionalism
• Global Environmental Politics
• Global Ethic of Care
• Global Governance
• Global Justice, Western Perspectives
• Globalization
• Governance of the Arctic
• Grand Strategy
• Greater Middle East, The
• Greek Crisis
• Hague Conferences (1899, 1907)
• Hierarchies in International Relations
• History and International Relations
• Human Nature in International Relations
• Human Rights
• Human Rights and Humanitarian Diplomacy
• Human Rights, Feminism and
• Human Rights Law
• Human Security
• Hybrid Warfare
• Ideal Diplomat, The
• Identity and Foreign Policy
• Ideology, Values, and Foreign Policy
• Illicit Trade and Smuggling
• Imperialism
• Indian Perspectives on International Relations, War, and C...
• Indigenous Rights
• Industrialization
• Intelligence
• Intelligence Oversight
• Internal Displacement
• International Conflict Settlements, The Durability of
• International Criminal Court, The
• International Economic Organizations (IMF and World Bank)
• International Health Governance
• International Justice, Theories of
• International Law, Feminist Perspectives on
• International Monetary Relations, History of
• International Negotiation and Conflict Resolution
• International Nongovernmental Organizations
• International Norms for Cultural Preservation and Cooperat...
• International Organizations
• International Relations, Aesthetic Turn in
• International Relations as a Social Science
• International Relations, Practice Turn in
• International Relations, Research Ethics in
• International Relations Theory
• International Security
• International Society
• International Society, Theorizing
• International Support For Nonstate Armed Groups
• Internet Law
• Interstate Cooperation Theory and International Institutio...
• Intervention and Use of Force
• Interviews and Focus Groups
• Iran, Politics and Foreign Policy
• Iraq: Past and Present
• Japanese Foreign Policy
• Just War Theory
• Kurdistan and Kurdish Politics
• Law of the Sea
• Laws of War
• Leadership in International Affairs
• Leadership Personality Characteristics and Foreign Policy
• League of Nations
• Lean Forward and Pull Back Options for US Grand Strategy
• Mediation and Civil Wars
• Mediation in International Conflicts
• Mediation via International Organizations
• Memory and World Politics
• Mercantilism
• Middle East, The Contemporary
• Middle Powers and Regional Powers
• Military Science
• Minorities in the Middle East
• Minority Rights
• Morality in Foreign Policy
• Multilateralism (1992–), Return to
• National Liberation, International Law and Wars of
• National Security Act of 1947, The
• Nation-Building
• NATO, Europe, and Russia: Security Issues and the Border R...
• Natural Resources, Energy Politics, and Environmental Cons...
• New Multilateralism in the Early 21st Century
• Nonproliferation and Counterproliferation
• Nonviolent Resistance Datasets
• Normative Aspects of International Peacekeeping
• Normative Power Beyond the Eurocentric Frame
• Nuclear Proliferation
• Peace Education in Post-Conflict Zones
• Peace of Utrecht
• Peacebuilding, Post-Conflict
• Peacekeeping
• Political Demography
• Political Economy of National Security
• Political Extremism in Sub-Saharan Africa
• Political Learning and Socialization
• Political Psychology
• Politics and Islam in Turkey
• Politics and Nationalism in Cyprus
• Politics of Extraction: Theories and New Concepts for Crit...
• Politics of Resilience
• Popuism and Global Politics
• Popular Culture and International Relations
• Post-Civil War State
• Post-Conflict and Transitional Justice
• Post-Conflict Reconciliation in the Middle East and North ...
• Power Transition Theory
• Preventive War and Preemption
• Prisoners, Treatment of
• Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs)
• Process Tracing Methods
• Pro-Government Militias
• Proliferation
• Prospect Theory in International Relations
• Psychoanalysis in Global Politics and International Relati...
• Psychology and Foreign Policy
• Public Opinion and Foreign Policy
• Public Opinion and the European Union
• Quantum Social Science
• Race and International Relations
• Rebel Governance
• Reconciliation
• Reflexivity and International Relations
• Religion and International Relations
• Religiously Motivated Violence
• Reputation in International Relations
• Responsibility to Protect
• Rising Powers in World Politics
• Role Theory in International Relations
• Russian Foreign Policy
• Russian Revolutions and Civil War, 1917–1921
• Sanctions in International Law
• Science Diplomacy
• Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), The
• Secrecy and Diplomacy
• Securitization
• Self-Determination
• Shining Path
• Sinophone and Japanese International Relations Theory
• Small State Diplomacy
• Social Scientific Theories of Imperialism
• Sovereignty
• Soviet Union in World War II
• Space Strategy, Policy, and Power
• Spatial Dependencies and International Mediation
• Status in International Relations
• Strategic Air Power
• Strategic and Net Assessments
• Sub-Saharan Africa, Conflict Formations in
• Sustainable Development
• Systems Theory
• Teaching International Relations
• Territorial Disputes
• Terrorism and Poverty
• Terrorism, Geography of
• Terrorist Financing
• Terrorist Group Strategies
• The Changing Nature of Diplomacy
• The Politics and Diplomacy of Neutrality
• The Politics and Diplomacy of the First World War
• The Queer in/of International Relations
• the Twenty-First Century, Alliance Commitments in
• The Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relation...
• Theories of International Relations, Feminist
• Theory, Chinese International Relations
• Time Series Approaches to International Affairs
• Transnational Actors
• Transnational Law
• Transnational Social Movements
• Tribunals, War Crimes and
• Trust and International Relations
• UN Security Council
• United Nations, The
• United States and Asia, The
• Uppsala Conflict Data Program
• US and Africa
• US–UK Special Relationship
• Voluntary International Migration
• War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714)
• Weapons of Mass Destruction
• Western Balkans
• Western Front (World War I)
• Westphalia, Peace of (1648)
• Women and Peacemaking Peacekeeping
• World Economy 1919-1939
• World Polity School
• World War II Diplomacy and Political Relations
• World-System Theory
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [195.158.225.230]
• 195.158.225.230

Essay on The Role of Youth in Nation Building

Students are often asked to write an essay on The Role of Youth in Nation Building in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on The Role of Youth in Nation Building

The power of youth.

Youth are the building blocks of a nation. They represent the future and hold the power to shape the nation’s destiny. Their energy, innovation, and courage are vital for the growth of a country.

Nation Building and Youth

The role of youth in nation building is crucial. They can bring about social reform and contribute to the development of the nation. They are the ones who can innovate, inspire, and drive the change needed for a nation’s growth.

Challenges and Opportunities

Youths face many challenges but also have numerous opportunities. With proper guidance and resources, they can overcome obstacles and contribute significantly to nation building. Their enthusiasm, creativity, and tech-savviness can be harnessed for the betterment of the nation.

250 Words Essay on The Role of Youth in Nation Building

Introduction.

Youth, the powerhouse of any nation, is the driving force behind its development and progress. They are the torchbearers of change, innovation, and advancement, playing a pivotal role in nation-building.

The Potential of Youth

Education and empowerment.

Education is a critical tool in empowering the youth and preparing them for their role in nation-building. It equips them with the necessary knowledge and skills to contribute to the nation’s growth and development. Furthermore, it fosters critical thinking and promotes a sense of responsibility towards society.

Youth Participation in Politics

The involvement of youth in politics is crucial for a healthy democracy. They bring fresh perspectives and progressive ideologies, challenging the status quo and advocating for change. Their participation ensures that the interests of the younger generation are represented in policy-making decisions.

In conclusion, the role of youth in nation-building is indispensable. They are the change agents, the innovators, and the leaders of tomorrow. By harnessing their potential, fostering their education, and encouraging their participation in politics, we can ensure a prosperous future for our nation. The youth are not just the future of the nation; they are its present, shaping its trajectory towards progress and development.

500 Words Essay on The Role of Youth in Nation Building

The role of youth in nation-building is paramount. They represent the future, embodying the potential and prospects of a nation. Their energy, innovation, and resilience can drive social change and economic progress. As they transition into adulthood, they carry the responsibility of steering the nation towards prosperity and peace.

Youth are not just the leaders of tomorrow, but also the partners of today. They possess a dynamic spirit – a combination of cognitive flexibility, inherent curiosity, and a propensity for risk-taking. These attributes make them particularly adept at adapting to change and driving progress. They are not just beneficiaries of development, but also agents of change, capable of initiating social reform and technological innovation.

Education: A Key Tool for Empowerment

Political participation.

Youth involvement in politics is another key aspect of nation-building. By engaging in political processes, young people can voice their concerns, influence policies, and hold leaders accountable. Their participation helps ensure that governance is representative and responsive to the needs of all segments of society.

Entrepreneurship and Economic Development

Entrepreneurship among the youth can significantly contribute to economic development. By creating new businesses, young entrepreneurs generate employment, stimulate innovation, and facilitate economic diversification. They can also drive sustainable development by adopting environmentally-friendly business practices.

Social Activism

In conclusion, the role of youth in nation-building is multifaceted and crucial. They are the engines of social, political, and economic development. By empowering them through education, encouraging their political participation, fostering entrepreneurship, and supporting their social activism, we can harness their potential for nation-building. The youth are not just the future of a nation; they are its present, and their energy and vision are indispensable for building a prosperous and peaceful nation.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Nation-Building 101

The chief threats to us and to world order come from weak, collapsed, or failed states. Learning how to fix such states—and building necessary political support at home—will be a defining issue for America in the century ahead

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war."

—George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

"We meet here during a crucial period in the history of our nation, and of the civilized world. Part of that history was written by others; the rest will be written by us ... Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more." (italics added)

—George W. Bush, February 26, 2003

The transformation of George W. Bush from a presidential candidate opposed to nation-building into a President committed to writing the history of an entire troubled part of the world is one of the most dramatic illustrations we have of how the September 11 terrorist attacks changed American politics. Under Bush's presidency the United States has taken responsibility for the stability and political development of two Muslim countries—Afghanistan and Iraq. A lot now rides on our ability not just to win wars but to help create self-sustaining democratic political institutions and robust market-oriented economies, and not only in these two countries but throughout the Middle East.

The fact is that the chief threats to us and to world order come today from weak, collapsed, or failed states. Weak or absent government institutions in developing countries form the thread linking terrorism, refugees, AIDS, and global poverty. Before 9/11 the United States felt it could safely ignore chaos in a far-off place like Afghanistan; but the intersection of religious terrorism and weapons of mass destruction has meant that formerly peripheral areas are now of central concern.

Conservatives never approved of the so-called "humanitarian interventions" undertaken during the 1990s, including those in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and East Timor. Liberals, for their part, remain unconvinced by the Bush Administration's rationale for its invasion of Iraq. But whether for reasons of human rights or of security, the United States has done a lot of intervening over the past fifteen years, and has taken on roughly one new nation-building commitment every other year since the end of the Cold War. We have been in denial about it, but we are in this business for the long haul. We'd better get used to it, and learn how to do it—because there will almost certainly be a next time.

Critics of nation-building point out that outsiders can never build nations, if that means creating or repairing all the cultural, social, and historical ties that bind people together as a nation. What we are really talking about is state-building—that is, creating or strengthening such government institutions as armies, police forces, judiciaries, central banks, tax-collection agencies, health and education systems, and the like.

This process has two very separate phases, both of them critical. The first involves stabilizing the country, offering humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, rebuilding the infrastructure, and jump-starting the economy. The second phase begins after stability has been achieved, and consists of creating self-sustaining political and economic institutions that will ultimately permit competent democratic governance and economic growth.

The first of these phases is well understood, and although difficult, it lies within the capability of both the United States and the broader international community. (The United States Agency for International Development has a very spotty record in promoting long-term economic growth but is actually pretty good at delivering humanitarian assistance.) The second phase, the transition to self-sustaining development, is far more challenging; and it is even more important in the long run. The key word is "self-sustaining": unless outside powers are able to leave behind stable, legitimate, relatively uncorrupt indigenous state institutions, they have no hope of a graceful exit.

What long-term lessons can we draw from the American experience so far in the reconstruction of Iraq? The Bush Administration has been heavily criticized for its failure to plan adequately for the postwar period; but we must remember that nation-building is inherently difficult. If an unexpected problem arises, that does not necessarily mean there was a planning failure, because it is not possible to anticipate every contingency.

Administration officials argue that they did considerable planning for which they don't get credit, because it had to do with contingencies that never arose. Chemical and biological weapons, and also oil-field sabotage and fires, were much discussed before the war. But the Iraqis evidently had no such weapons; and, largely because the country was occupied so fast (the result of a war plan that emphasized lightness and speed over numbers and redundancy), the oil fields were not sabotaged. Before the war some 60 percent of the Iraqi population lived on food donated by the UN World Food Programme, and the Administration worked quietly with that agency to ensure that food would flow to the whole Iraqi population during the war. Extensive plans were made to deal with a major humanitarian or refugee crisis like the one that followed the Gulf War of 1991—but none emerged.

For what, then, can the Administration justly be held accountable? By far the most important oversight was its failure to develop contingency plans against the possibility that the Iraqi state would almost completely collapse. The Administration hoped to decapitate the country's Baathist leadership and allow new leaders to take over quickly. Instead there was a severe breakdown of order, as the army melted away, the police stopped patrolling the streets, and government ministries stopped functioning. The consequences of this disorder were significant: the government's physical infrastructure disappeared, as ministries were stripped of doors, toilets, and wiring and then torched; the search for weapons of mass destruction was compromised by the looting of weapons sites; and many Iraqis' first impression of their "liberation" was one of crime and chaos.

There were precedents for what happened in Iraq—most obviously the aftermath of the U.S. intervention in Panama in 1989, when days of looting and disorder resulted in billions of dollars' worth of damage. Could the Bush Administration, with better foresight, have hedged against the possibility of large-scale chaos in Iraq?

Perhaps. One consequence of the decision to invade the country with a very small force—about 150,000 strong—was that after major combat operations there were simply not enough soldiers to spread around the country. Flooding the zone with forces would have helped. But combat troops are notoriously unprepared to deal with civil disturbances and police functions, and often make things worse through the heavy-handed use of force. The United States does not maintain a national police force for use in such situations; the only option would have been to bring in follow-on peacekeeping or constabulary forces such as Italian carabinieri , Canadian peacekeepers, or the Spanish Guardia Civil.

But before we assume that a multilateral approach would have prevented looting in Iraq, we should recall that earlier multilateral missions, to deploy police forces in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, were poorly organized and understaffed, and in most cases arrived too late to perform their functions when they were most needed. It is not likely that a slow-moving international police force would have made much difference. The Italians did eventually send the carabinieri to Iraq, but they arrived long after the looting had subsided.

America's involvement in nation-building over the past fifteen years has yielded some significant knowledge about organizing for the task, as a recent study by the RAND Corporation demonstrates. But the Bush Administration failed to draw on this institutional knowledge. Its most serious planning mistakes were to set up its postwar-reconstruction organization at the last minute, to endow it with insufficient authority, and to put it under the overall control of the Pentagon, which did not have the capacity to do the job properly. The result was an organization that, instead of hitting the ground running after the end of major combat, wasted precious weeks and months building its own capabilities.

Sometime in August of 2002 President Bush signed the executive order that put in train final military planning for the war, and U.S. forces began deploying to the Persian Gulf toward the end of the year. But not until January 20 of last year was Jay Garner, a retired lieutenant general, appointed to coordinate the new Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. He had less than two months to pull together the planning efforts of various U.S. agencies before the ORHA was relocated to Kuwait, on March 17, at the start of the war. The ORHA went from a staff of six and a phoneless office in the Pentagon in late January to an organization with a staff of 700 just three months later—an impressive feat of institutional creation by any standard. Nevertheless, since the State Department, USAID, the CIA, and the Army War College had prepared extensive plans for the postwar period, the question remains why the Administration did not seek to integrate their recommendations into a coordinated process as soon as the war planning began (see "Blind Into Baghdad," in this issue).

There was, moreover, a serious problem of authority. Garner, who had led humanitarian relief efforts in Kurdistan after the Gulf War, was a former three-star general, and thus not in a position to give orders to the four-star CENTCOM Commander Tommy Franks. Garner was succeeded in mid-May by Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, a very senior foreign-service officer and counterterrorism expert who now heads the Coalition Provisional Authority, the successor to the ORHA. Bremer was far more visible and well known back in Washington—an insider who could command much more authority than Garner could.

The unfortunate public perception is that Garner was replaced for having presided over a chaotic and disorganized reconstruction effort. In fact he did an amazing job under the circumstances. It had been the Bush Administration's plan all along to replace Garner with a more distinguished and visible administrator; so why wasn't Bremer, or someone of his stature, in place before the beginning of the war?

The Administration has argued that it could not have begun coordinated postwar planning in the fall of 2002, because it was still seeking the approval of the international community for the war. This argument is disingenuous: the President clearly signaled that he would proceed with or without the approval of the international community, and did not wait for the United Nations before deploying military forces to the Gulf—a deployment that, like Von Moltke's railroad schedules in July of 1914, could not easily be reversed. In reality, the late planning and weak command were rooted in a series of interagency battles that took place in the fall of 2002.

The first phase of nation-building—post-conflict reconstruction—is extremely difficult to implement, because the necessary capabilities are widely spread out among a host of government and civilian agencies. Earlier nation-building exercises suffered from poor coordination, both within the U.S. government and within the broader international community. In Bosnia, for example, the Dayton Accords gave military authority to NATO, whereas civil authority was divided among the Office of the High Representative, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Some functions, including the creation of an international police force, fell through the cracks. Within the U.S. government the military clashed with civilian agencies over its role in noncombat missions such as demobilization and policing.

The U.S. officials involved learned some important lessons during the 1990s, which the Clinton Administration codified in Presidential Decision Directive 56, in May of 1997. PDD 56 established an interagency framework for coordinating the U.S. response to post-conflict emergencies, and was used during the reconstruction of Kosovo following the 1999 NATO intervention there. Owing in part to the better U.S. coordination, the nation-building effort in Kosovo was much better organized on an international level than the one in Bosnia, with greater unity of command and considerably quieter interagency squabbles.

At the beginning of the Bush Administration, efforts were made to replace PDD 56 with a new directive that would have put the White House's National Security Council staff in charge of coordinating any nation-building activities. By all accounts this was a sensible idea, but the President never signed the draft, apparently because of persistent objections from the Defense Department. Then came September 11, the Afghan war, and the ensuing reconstruction effort. The Bush Administration still had no agreed-upon policy framework for nation-building, and many officials regarded the reconstruction effort in Afghanistan as a fiasco.

This was the background against which the Pentagon put forth, shortly after passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, in November of 2002, its "big idea" that all postwar planning should be centralized under its own control. The delay in the appointment of a reconstruction coordinator was due to the big fight that ensued from the big idea.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had some serious reasons for wanting to retain control over the reconstruction effort. Previous nation-building exercises had always had two chains of command, one dealing with military security and the other—through the local ambassador and the State Department—with civil affairs. In Rumsfeld's view, this split authority tied down U.S. forces, because the civilian chain of command could never agree on an exit strategy and was constantly calling on the military to do things for which it was not prepared, such as police work. This problem, according to Rumsfeld, was particularly acute in Bosnia, where U.S. forces were still deployed seven years after the signing of the Dayton Accords, and it had emerged in Afghanistan after the United States ousted the Taliban.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon had been fighting for months with the State Department and the intelligence community over the role of Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. At the extremes were those in the Pentagon who believed that the democratization of Iraq could be delegated entirely to Chalabi, and those in the State Department and the intelligence community who thought him unfit for any role in postwar Iraq.

By late December of 2002 Rumsfeld, the consummate bureaucratic infighter, had prevailed. President Bush agreed to give control to the Pentagon because the idea of a unified command appealed to him. But this strategy had distinct disadvantages: the Pentagon, which lacked the institutional knowledge or capacity to do many of the things that need to be done in reconstruction, did not turn to the right places. The Defense Department does not have any particular expertise in writing constitutions or in producing attractive TV programs to compete with al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya for the hearts and minds of Arab viewers. It does not have good relations with the international NGOs that provide humanitarian services; nor does it have a way of coordinating activities with the UN and other multilateral institutions.

Once it became clear that the reconstruction of Iraq was going to be far costlier and longer than expected, there were immediate calls in Congress for international help. But although such help would be welcomed by American taxpayers, the international community is no better coordinated for nation-building than the U.S. government.

To begin with, no central authority exists within the international community to lead nation-building efforts. Much as other countries might like to give this responsibility to the United Nations, that is not a practical solution. The UN does not have the expertise or the resources, human and otherwise, to run nation-building programs authoritatively. For these it depends on the heavyweight funders—namely, the United States, the European Union, and, to a lesser extent, Japan.

Moreover, no one has solved the more serious problem of how to implement the second phase of nation-building—the transition to self-sustaining indigenous institutions. As the human-rights expert Michael Ignatieff memorably put it, whereas the mantra of the international community is "capacity building," the reality is often "capacity sucking-out," as well-endowed international agencies, contractors, and NGOs arrive with their cell phones, laptops, and First World salaries. In a recent article in the Journal of Democracy , Gerald Knaus and Felix Martin argue that Bosnia seven years after the Dayton Accords has become a "European Raj," in which the High Representative acts as a viceroy presiding over a colonial dependency that is without either democracy or self-government. Neither there nor in Kosovo is an exit strategy evident, because the departure of the international community would leave both places with the intractable political problems that led to intervention in the first place.

None of this means that the United States should exclude the international community from future nation-building exercises. Multilateralism means the difference between the $70 billion contributed by foreign powers to pay for the Gulf War and the $13 billion they have pledged for reconstruction this time around. The international community can provide constabulary forces, water engineers, land-mine-removal experts, and other resources that the United States often cannot field quickly. What is needed is a standing U.S. government office to cooperate with this community, with an eye to the long lead times that are inevitable.

The Bush Administration's experience in Iraq does not teach new lessons about nation-building but, rather, reinforces some old ones that have been forgotten. The first is that nation-building is a difficult, long-term enterprise with high costs in manpower, lives, and resources. The places where it has been most successful—Germany, Japan, and the Philippines—are ones where U.S. forces have remained for generations. We should not get involved to begin with if we are not willing to pay those high costs.

That being said, we are now fully committed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and are likely to take on other nation-building commitments in the future, simply because the failed-state problem is one that we cannot safely ignore. It therefore behooves us to draw some lessons from our recent experience.

The problems that the Administration faced in Iraq were not so much the results of specific misjudgments as the predictable by-products of the Administration's poorly thought-out institutional structure. Fixing that structure would involve at least four things.

First, the United States needs to create a central authority, backed by a permanent staff, to manage ongoing and future nation-building activities. One possibility, recommended by the Commission on Post-conflict Reconstruction of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is to appoint a director of reconstruction. The director could be located in any of a number of places in the government, though the White House would be the most logical, given the delicate interagency relationships involved. (Recognizing that it had been a mistake to grant the Pentagon primacy over the reconstruction of Iraq, the White House staff moved to take back that authority in October of 2003.) The director's office would serve as a fund of institutional memory, so that we would not have to perpetually run around teaching ourselves what we already knew.

Second, this coordinating office must be endowed with sufficient authority to bring the government's warring agencies under control when a crisis emerges. That means a civilian equivalent of the CENTCOM commander should be appointed to take charge of postwar civil planning, coincident with and on a par with military planning.

Third, any standing organization devoted to nation-building should maintain ties with similar agencies in other countries. Although the international community has—through efforts in Somalia, Bosnia, and East Timor—gotten better at nation-building, it, too, lacks the means for preserving institutional memory, and could use American help.

Finally, the reconstruction effort must remain under clear civilian control as it moves from the first stage, stabilizing the region, to the second stage, creating self-sustaining institutions that will ultimately allow the United States a graceful exit. Decisions about how rapidly to turn over authority to local actors, what the sequence for political reform should be, and when and how to reduce aid levels and presence in a country cannot be left to the Department of Defense, which will always be biased in favor of a quick exit.

This bias will be of particular importance as the reconstruction of Iraq progresses. Donald Rumsfeld has articulated a strategy of nation-building "lite," involving a rapid transition to local control and a tough-love policy that leaves locals to find their own way toward good government and democracy. This is a dubious approach, at least if one cares about the final outcome. The new Iraqi government will be administratively weak and not regarded by its citizens as fully legitimate. It will be plagued by corruption and mismanagement, and riven by internal disagreements—witness the fight between the Iraqi Governing Council's Shia and non-Shia members over how to draft a new constitution. Nation-building requires a lot more than training police and military forces to take over from the United States: unless such forces are embedded in a strong framework of political parties, a judiciary, a civilian administration, and a rule of law, they will become mere pawns in the internal struggle for power. Nation-building "lite" risks being used as an intellectual justification for getting out, regardless of the mess we leave behind.

A standing U.S. government office to manage nation-building will be a hard sell politically, because we are still unreconciled to the idea that we are in the nation-building business for the long haul. However, international relations is no longer just a game played between great powers but one in which what happens inside smaller countries can have a huge effect on the rest of the world. Our "empire" may be a transitional one grounded in democracy and human rights, but our interests dictate that we learn how better to teach other people to govern themselves.

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• School Education /

Essay on the Role of Youth in Nation-Building

• Updated on  
• Apr 8, 2024

Essay on the Role of Youth in Nation-Building: A country’s future depends on its youth. They represent the nation at all levels and are its future. In every aspect of a county’s development, its youth play a major role. To put it another way, the nation will succeed because of its intelligence and the hard work of its youth. The youth bear the same responsibility as every other citizen. They serve as a national foundation. 

Quick Read: How to Write an Essay in English?

Table of Contents

• 1.1 Understanding the Role of Youth
• 1.2 Methods for Helping the Youth
• 1.3 Conclusion
• 2 Paragraph on Nation Building in India

Essay on the Role of Youth in Nation-Building in 500 Words

In every country, young people are seen as a valuable resource. At every level, they represent their nation and are the representatives of future generations. Youth may play a crucial and frequently undervalued role in the development of a nation. The intelligence and efforts of the youth have made the country successful. The youth are the backbone of the nation’s advancement and development, and as such, they have responsibility. 

Did You Know: Mahatma Gandhi wanted the youth to engage in constructive work, educate the villagers and imbibe morally superior values.

Understanding the Role of Youth

Young people are crucial because they will shape our future. Even though they are currently our partners, they might eventually assume leadership positions. The youth are incredibly enthusiastic and full of energy. They can adapt to their environment and learn new skills. In a similar vein, they are prepared to pick up knowledge and apply it to further their objectives. 

Our youth have the power to transform society and bring about social reform. We cannot survive without a nation’s youth. In addition, their involvement is needed for the country to move forward and accomplish its objectives.

Similarly, we observe that youth involvement is essential to any nation’s development. Youth is necessary in all fields, whether we want to advance in the technical or sporting domains. It is up to us to assist the young people in carrying out this role appropriately. All young people need to be made aware of their potential and their part in fostering a stronger nation.

Quick Read: Essay on National Youth Day

Methods for Helping the Youth

There are numerous ways that we can support our nation’s youth in realising their full potential. To ensure that they can flourish without interference, the government must implement programmes that will aid in combating problems like unemployment, subpar educational institutions, and more. 

In a similar vein, it is the responsibility of citizens to push our children to excel in all areas. Our favourite people will lose their spark if we don’t believe in them and discourage them all the time. We should ensure that they have the wind beneath their wings to soar far, rather than pulling them down by guarding the links to their wings. 

Quick Read: World Health Day Speech: 07 April

Regardless of a person’s gender, caste, religion, colour, or any other attribute, they must all be granted equal opportunity. The nation’s true talent is being eroded by several nepotistic and favouritism problems. This needs to be eliminated right away. Every young person needs to have the opportunity to demonstrate their worth, and that opportunity needs to be extended equally to all of them. 

In other words, we have to give our youth the chance to build our country. They possess a perspective that the older generations do not, as they are the future. Their enthusiasm and passion need to be directed in the right direction to guarantee that a nation grows and prospers.

One cannot overstate the significance of youth in the process of building a nation. They actively promote change and advancement in addition to being the recipients of development benefits. Understanding the potential of youth can contribute to the growth of more creative, prosperous, cohesive societies. Governments, corporations, and communities must all make major investments in youth empowerment. They also need to create an atmosphere that supports their involvement by providing them with leadership, jobs, and educational opportunities. The only way for nations to prosper in the twenty-first century is to harness the energy, creativity, and idealism of youth.

Paragraph on Nation Building in India

Ans: They are an important resource that can help a country progress socially, economically, and musically. Young people are frequently the most engaged members of society and have the power to promote positive change through vocally opposing social injustice.

Ans: Innovation, employment, and income development are all driven by the need to innovate. The youth of India not only seek employment but also generate it.

Ans: To eliminate inequality, people must question outmoded behaviours, adopt new perspectives, and speak out against injustices (such as gender-based violence). 

Check out our Popular Essay Topics for Students

For more information on such interesting topics, visit our essay writing page and follow Leverage Edu.

Aayushi Vardhan

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Role of Youth in Nation Building Essay

Long and Short Essay on Role of Youth in Nation Building

The role of Youth in nation-building or development is very important, and this is because the development of any nation lies in the future generation. Democracy, economy, technology and the improvement of medical science all lie in the hands of the Youth. Poverty, unemployment, global warming, and pollution of many types are the problems that the world is facing today. The answer to solving all these problems lies with the next generation.

History is evident that the next generation has been the answer to solve future problems. As time passes by, it is required to adapt to the changes and bring a change in society. The Youth is capable of doing so; we can bring a change in society. So what is the role of the Youth for a better tomorrow? What are the qualities that are required to bring a change in society?. These two questions are very important, and all the students should know the answer to them. To answer these questions, the role of Youth in nation-building essays is written. 

Below a long and short essay on the role of youths in nation-building and frequently asked questions on the essay about the role of the Youth in our society is given. Students can refer to these essays and understand the importance of Youth in the development of the country and make a speech on the role of youth in nation-building.

Long Essay on Role of Youths in Nation-Building

Swami Vivekananda once said, 'My faith is in the younger generation, the modern generation and out of them will come to my workers. This quote describes the impact the Youth can have on society. More than 60% of the Youth helped Germany win the first world war far better or the worst. The mission to make the first person walk on the moon consisted of more than 80% of the Youth who helped in planning the whole mission. Likewise, Indian Youth also played an important role to make our country free from British rule. Youth has the power to change the world. When the Youth is united, we can make the world a better place to live, and when we are divided, we also have the power to destroy the world.

Youth is the most dynamic and important segment of the population in any country. Statistics show that the developing countries which have a huge youth population could be seeing tremendous growth in all the sectors of the countries provided they inc=vest in young people's education, health and protect and guarantee their rights. It is believed that today's young minds and tomorrow's leaders, creators, builders, and innovators.

For Youth to be good leaders, inventors and innovators, it is important that they are supported and are provided good health, training, and education to transform the future. There will be a boost in the economy of the country when the Youth is working and earning rather than being dependent on anyone.

As we all know that half of the world's population is now under the age of 25, and 1.8 billion people are between the age of 11-25. This is considered to be the largest youth generation to ever exist. Many countries such as Sweden, Japan, and Germany have already started gaining from the Youth by providing them opportunities in different sectors. It has been more than 80 years since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. Any country would be devastated by the loss of lives and the destruction that was caused during that time, but Japan did not stop, and over the decades, the government of Japan has started investing in the Youth and the investment they made in the Youth during that time is giving them the profit now. More than 80% of Youth in Japan are responsible for the economic boost of the country. Industries such as Manga and Anime consist of 90% of young minds that are responsible for generating a revenue of 1.3 billion every year to the country. This is the impact that Youth can make on the country's growth. Here the role of Youth in the national development article is discussed.

Indian Youth- Confused or Confident? 

Let us talk about the Youth of India; Today, India is one of the youngest nations in the world, with more than 55% of the population is below the age of 25, and more than 60% of the population is the working age, which is between 15 to 60 years. It is estimated that the average age of the population by the year 2023 would be 29 years old and in India, whereas, in Japan, it would be 47 years, and in the United States of America, it would be 40 years old. The presence of younger people in our country gives us an edge over the demographic dividend over other countries. The demographic dividend is the growth in the economy of the country due to the change in the age structure of the country. The Youth of our country today are increasingly becoming restless and trying their best to make a difference, but it has not been enough. More effort should be made if we all want to end unemployment, poverty, corruption, and violence in the country. Due to the presence of these diseases in our society, there has been a delay in the development of the country.

India is the biggest democracy in the world, and still, it lags in achieving economic and socio-political growth. The two things which our freedom fighters fought for were freedom and the growth of the country, and after all those years, we have failed in achieving both goals. For 72 years, we have failed to fight unemployment, poverty, corruption, illiteracy, and violence in our country. India's ranks in the various development index have barely grown in recent years. For example, India ranks 116 in the Human Capital Index, 144 in the World Happiness Index, 131 in the Human Development Index, and 141 on the Gender Development Index. This shows the state in which our country is. If India wants to improve all these indices, then it is the responsibility of the Youth to come forward and take responsibility to fight against the multiple inequalities and contribute to the development of the country.

Statistics show that India has the upper hand over other countries as 62 % of the population is the Youth. Young minds are known to be innovative and hard-working that will help in the development of the country. Youth can change the country only if proper opportunities in the various fields are given to them. In our society, we have been guided to pursue careers in either engineering or medical science. This could be because of the pressure from the family or the trend in society. This has become a major cause for the downfall of the Youth. A statistical report suggests that about 55% of engineering Youth are unemployed because they don't have the required skills to crack a job. The Youth can change society if they consider pursuing a career in different fields like arts and politics. If proper opportunities are given to the Youth to represent their ideas in fields such as politics, then we can expect a drastic change in the country's growth. Young minds should be motivated to take part in politics and occupy high positions such as education minister, finance minister, bureaucrats, and even the Prime minister.

Youth has the power to bring change. They have the power to demand justice. For example, a mass protest by the Youth against the CAA bill in Delhi or the mass protest by the Youth in Delhi for justice of Nirbhaya cases are some of the examples of the strength of the Youth. TRO makes the Youth the ultimate power of the country, and educational programs should be developed that aims to teach the young people from the school level the importance and the impact they can have on the country. They should be taught about how the country works and how it can be a significant part of the development of the country. Youth should be motivated to consider different career options such as politics, which eventually helps in running the country. 

Our nation has been facing a lot of problems, and Youth has the power to resolve most of them. All the Youth of today need is a chance to prove themselves. Through many protests against corruption, rape against women, we have witnessed that the Youth have the power to unite individuals from various ethnic groups. The world has been facing many problems such as Racism and Islamophobia. Everyone is fighting with each other because of the religion to which they belong or the complexion of their skin color. These fights within the Youth are created by political leaders or the people with power because they know that the only way they could defeat the power of Youth is when we are divided. This is the reason why we need Youth in politics as youth leaders could convince other fellow men and women to live in peace and harmony. The differences and all these issues should not allow the Youth to be divided. Instead of focusing on these differences, youth leaders should lead the way and help the majority focus on the real issues that matter, such as poverty, crime against women, unemployment, and many more. The Youth has the ability to bring a change in the country. 

To conclude, the role of the Youth is very important in the building of a nation. They can be a positive influence in society and can also solve the problem by introducing innovative and impactful ideas that will only help in the betterment of the country. They have the ability to create an identity for themselves, which will help in creating an impact. All the youth needs is the support of their family and friends, and I can assure you that they can make our country great. 

Short Essay on the Role of Youth in National Development

India is the world's largest democracy and the second largest populated country in the world.65% of the population comprises the Youth, and this is enough to show the importance of Youth and how big of an asset they are for the country.

The role of Youth in nation-building is very important. The work they do and the ideas they help to bring to the table will take the country on the path to success. In spite of being the largest democracy in the world, India is still lagging behind in achieving the economic success that will help to make a mark in the world. It has been 72 years since the freedom of our country, and throughout all these years, India has been infected by a few diseases such as corruption, unemployment, poverty, malnutrition, no proper healthcare services, and a crime against men and women. Indians are ranked 144 in the world happiness index, 141 in the gender development index, and 145 in the Global burden Index. India's rank in the various development indexes has not improved over a few years. The only way India can improve the ranks in all these indices is through empowering the Youth of the country. The Youth need to take charge and come forward to fight for a better tomorrow, and that can only be done if proper opportunities are provided to Youth in different fields.

If anyone wants to bring a change in the system, the only option is to study and get into it. The Indian Youth should consider joining politics and running for different roles such as the governor, bureaucrats, Home minister, and even Prime minister. Youth have the advantage of being a young mind and more connected to today's generation. A youth running the country will help in solving the problems that other Youth faces every day.

Youth has the ability to face any issue and solve it. There has been a rise in the cases of Racism and Islamophobia all across the world. Instead of focusing on important topics such as unemployment, poverty, and corruption, the Youth in our country is divided into a few not-so-important topics. This is because the majority of the Youth has been influenced t=by greedy political leaders who think all about themselves. This is why we need the Youth to be part of politics. Imagine a youth leader who unites every fellow Youth to focus and fight for what will matter for the future, and our country would be great.

To conclude, the Youth has the power to build a nation that will only help in its development. To do so, the Youth of our country should be supported by friends and family members. The Youth should be supported to pursue careers in various fields such as cinema, arts, and politics. The support which everyone will give today to the Youth will help in making our country great in the future. The important role of the youth in nation-building has been discussed here, and students can take a cue for writing an essay on my role as a youth in nation-building.

FAQs on Role of Youth in Nation Building Essay

1. Why is it important to build a nation?

A Nation is a group of people with a common language, beliefs, traditions and culture. Countries have been built from the basis of the shared interest, identity and aspirations of their people coming from different backgrounds. When you say you are Pakistani, Indian or American etc., what comes to your mind? Education, education and education. You have a common identity with all the people living in that particular country which is why you feel united in helping each other in times of need. A nation is a place where all the people live together with harmony and peace because they are united under one umbrella, which is the identity of that particular nation. Building a nation is important because a strong nation can only lead to a stronger economy, which in turn will bring about positive changes for the people living in that country and make their lives easier.

2. What are the traits of a good leader in nation building?

A good leader is a person who has vision and clarity about where he or she wants to take the country. He has complete knowledge about what needs to be done to achieve his goal, whether it's peaceful negotiations between countries at war or building roads within the country. He is a good motivator and knows how to bring out the best in people. He is honest and has high moral values. Last but not least, he is a true leader who can lead from the front and guide others to work for the common good. If a nation has a good leader, it can be possible to bring positive changes in every sector and make the country a better place to live in. With the help of a good leader, a nation can be built in a better way. A good leader can change the destiny of a nation.

3. What are the responsibilities of the youth in nation-building?

Youth has the responsibility to do their bit for nation-building, along with the common people like students, workers etc. Youth should make decisions after much thought and consideration because they hold the future of our generation in their hands. They should work together with all sections of society to bring about positive change in the country. They should also be involved in activities that promote national unity and solidarity. Youth should focus on their education and build a bright future for themselves and their country. They should join the army, civil services, police etc., to serve the nation in their respective capacities. The Youth play a very important role in Nation Building. They are the future of our country, and it is very important to groom them to become good leaders. Youth should be encouraged to take up sports and social work to strengthen our society. If a country has a responsible youth, then that Youth will definitely lead the country to a better future.

4. How can the youth be more involved in nation-building?

The Youth should take up jobs that benefit society. They can join the army, police or civil services to serve our nation. The Youth are our future and should be encouraged to take up sports and social work. Our Youth need to be educated because we cannot progress without them. We all must encourage our Youth to take part in nation-building activities so that together we can create a better future for everyone. With the help of our Youth, many problems can be solved. They should stop taking drugs and other harmful substances. Volunteering for community support activities is a very good way to give back to society while helping our Youth grow stronger in their personal life, health and well-being. If our Youth takes part in nation-building activities, then definitely our nation will be built in a better way.

5. What is the role of women in nation-building?

Women play a very important role in nation-building because they keep the family unit intact and pass on values to the young children. They must not neglect their household work and try to give equal importance to their traditional role while also training themselves to be good citizens. Women should strive for a healthy environment in society and join groups that work to bring about positive changes in their community. They can also involve themselves in nation-building activities like blood donation camps, tree plantation drives etc. There are many jobs women can take up, such as becoming police officers, nurses etc., to serve our nation. The role of Youth in Nation Building is very vital. A responsible youth can definitely lead the country to a better future. Youth should be encouraged to take up jobs that benefit society. Women contribute to nation-building in many ways like working with police, forest department etc. Women play a very important role in nation-building. Nowadays, women are given more freedom, and they play a vital role in society. Women involve themselves in nation-building activities like blood donation camps, tree plantation drives etc. women are taking up jobs in many fields like policewomen, nurses etc. So, women definitely play a very important role in nation-building, and they should be given more opportunities to serve our nation.

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Sociology Nation Building

The Role of Sport in Nation Building

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• Human Sexual Behavior
• Yellow Journalism
• Rhetorical Strategies
• Race and Agriculture
• Teacher-Student Relationships

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

• Website Inauguration Function.
• Vocational Placement Cell Inauguration
• Media Coverage.
• Certificate & Recommendations
• Privacy Policy
• Science Project Metric
• Social Studies 8 Class
• Computer Fundamentals
• Introduction to C++
• Programming Methodology
• Programming in C++
• Data structures
• Boolean Algebra
• Object Oriented Concepts
• Database Management Systems
• Open Source Software
• Operating System
• PHP Tutorials
• Earth Science
• Physical Science
• Sets & Functions
• Coordinate Geometry
• Mathematical Reasoning
• Statics and Probability
• Accountancy
• Business Studies
• Political Science
• English (Sr. Secondary)

Hindi (Sr. Secondary)

• Punjab (Sr. Secondary)
• Accountancy and Auditing
• Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Technology
• Automobile Technology
• Electrical Technology
• Electronics Technology
• Hotel Management and Catering Technology
• IT Application
• Marketing and Salesmanship
• Office Secretaryship
• Stenography
• Hindi Essays
• English Essays

Letter Writing

• Shorthand Dictation

Essay on “Role Of Students in Nation Building” Complete Essay for Class 10, Class 12 and Graduation and other classes.

Role Of Students in Nation Building

The future of India depends on our students. a country’s name and fame rest on the youth. If the power of young men or students is directed to constructive purposes, the whole nation will move to all round development. This responsibility has increased immensely with the dawn of independence. An eminent educationist has rightly said, “Give me the children and I will change the nation.”     A nation can make progress only when it gets the co- operation form all its citizens. So it is essential that students must know about their duties.

India is a developing country. The young men may do  a lot in the development work. They may go to the villages for adult education, for doing social service to the poor villagers, for teaching new technology in farming and other such vocations. The trained and learned young men may bring about green revolution in the country. They may preach ideas of secularism in the country. By leading an ideal simple life they may lead literate. In emergencies, they may do a lot in controlling floods etc. we can mobilize student power to preach communal harmony. In brief, the student power may be used at every moment whenever the nation needs their services.

To play their role properly in modern India we should teach the youth of our country to make themselves disciplined.  They should not be led away by the anti- national forces. They should  not go astray in their schools and colleges. In all, the teachers and professor may fill the students’ hearts with idealism. The youngmen should learn lessons of hard work, high morality, books as may create such ideals. Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru lived simple life. They fought and brought freedom to the country. They believed in ideal life of a true patriot. Let us (the students), learn lessons of patriotism and sacrifice from the life of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri and Rafi Ahmed Kidwai. The students should live for  the nation and follow the road paved by our beloved Nation builder, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel.

The educational institutions should frame courses and   syllabi conforming to these ideals. Mere preaching and teaching in incomplete and insufficient. The teaching must have some objective. The teaching should make the students enable to shoulder the responsibility of national reconstruction. By inspiring high ideals among the masses the students can make the nation great.     

The first duty of students is toward themselves. They should keep their bodies healthy and active. They should improve their healthy from the  very beginning. A sound body has a sound mind. To keep themselves strong, they should take a keen interest in games and sports and different forms of physical exercises. A weak student can do nothing. He is unable to do anything for the good of his country or to himself. Students should give to bad habits like smoking, gambling and aimless wandering. These bad habits affect their health directly or indirectly.

The students must understand that they are students and should pay full attention  to their studies. They should devote a greater part of their time to the pursuit of knowledge and  wisdom. They should play for them to learn and to prepare themselves for future responsibilities in life. Without good education they will not be able to shoulder their future burdens. 

Knowledge without character is wickedness. Students should cultivate in them good manners and purity of life. They should not follow only intellectual knowledge , but also from their moral character. Obedience to parents, respect for teachers, sympathy for the poor, love for all and malice towards none should be their chief moral ideals. They should be refined in their taste, sweet in their speech and polite in their behavior.

In short, the duty of students is to prepare for future responsibility. He is to remove the evils such as child marriage, gambling, drinking, smoking, litigation, superstition, untouchability, illiteracy, adulteration, corruption and dowry system, from the society. They should create in them a spirit of social service. Students are the future rulers and leaders of our country. They are the reserve force of our country. They are the backbone of the country. The future of India depends on our students.

About evirtualguru_ajaygour

commentscomments

It is a fine essay written in an easy style to be helpful to the students.

Good Essay!

You can add some other words. This essay is good but you can write add more points.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Quick Links

Popular Tags

Visitors question & answer.

• rrrr on Hindi Essay on “Pratahkal ki Sair” , ”प्रातःकाल की सैर ” Complete Hindi Essay for Class 10, Class 12 and Graduation and other classes.
• Mihir on CBSE ASL “Listening Test Worksheet” (ASL) 2017 for Class 11, Listening Test Audio Script 1
• Anska on Hindi Essay on “Parishram Saphalta ki Kunji Hai” , ”परिश्रम सफलता की कुंजी है ” Complete Hindi Essay for Class 10, Class 12 and Graduation and other classes.
• TEJAS on Hindi Essay on “Manoranjan Ke Adhunik Sadhan” , ” मनोरंजन के आधुनिक साधन” Complete Hindi Essay for Class 10, Class 12 and Graduation and other classes.
• Hania Shakeel on Hindi Essay on “Yadi mein Adhyapak Hota”, “यदि मैं अध्यापक होता” Complete Essay, Paragraph, Speech for Class 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 Students.

Download Our Educational Android Apps

Latest Desk

• Raudra Ras Ki Paribhasha, Bhed, Kitne Prakar ke hote hai aur Udahran | रौद्र रस की परिभाषा, भेद, कितने प्रकार के होते है और उदाहरण
• Veer Ras Ki Paribhasha, Bhed, Kitne Prakar ke hote hai aur Udahran | वीर रस की परिभाषा, भेद, कितने प्रकार के होते है और उदाहरण
• Karun Ras Ki Paribhasha, Bhed, Kitne Prakar ke hote hai aur Udahran | करुण रस की परिभाषा, भेद, कितने प्रकार के होते है और उदाहरण
• Hasya Ras Ki Paribhasha, Bhed, Kitne Prakar ke hote hai aur Udahran हास्य रस की परिभाषा, भेद, कितने प्रकार के होते है और उदाहरण।
• Example Letter regarding election victory.
• Example Letter regarding the award of a Ph.D.
• Example Letter regarding the birth of a child.
• Example Letter regarding going abroad.
• Letter regarding the publishing of a Novel.

Vocational Edu.

• English Shorthand Dictation “East and Dwellings” 80 and 100 wpm Legal Matters Dictation 500 Words with Outlines.
• English Shorthand Dictation “Haryana General Sales Tax Act” 80 and 100 wpm Legal Matters Dictation 500 Words with Outlines meaning.
• English Shorthand Dictation “Deal with Export of Goods” 80 and 100 wpm Legal Matters Dictation 500 Words with Outlines meaning.
• English Shorthand Dictation “Interpreting a State Law” 80 and 100 wpm Legal Matters Dictation 500 Words with Outlines meaning.