Becoming Nation:

Colonialist Nationalist Contestation on Characterization of India

Sajal Nag
The image of the orient of which India was an integral part to the West was ‘romantic’ 1 . It was
a country possessing fabulous wealth; it was a mystic land ruled by autocratic Rajas and despotic
Sultans. It is a land of pomp and glory enjoyed by medieval monarchs who built empires of
immense wealth. It was also a land of magic, snake charmers and rope tricks. 2 There was even
‘an extraordinary conception of the inhabitants and fauna of India: there are one-eyed, dog-
headed, and headless men, pygmies, men and women with large feet used as parasol, a winged
snake, a flying panther and other strange beasts, birds and insects.’ Such images were built
mainly from travelers accounts. These accounts were available right from Grecian times on the
basis of which the western world had fantastic ideas about India. 3 In spite of some scholarly
works like those of Dio Chrysostom (first century A.D.) who for the first time showed an
awareness of the Ramayana, Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 220), who is said to be the first writer
to mention the Buddha, Hippolytus (A.D. 230) who showed a direct knowledge of the
Upanishads, and later the realistic descriptions of Marco Polo, the west preferred to cling to the
idea of the east as a land of wonders peopled by fantastic creatures. 4

“Although the literature on travel, trade and contemporary politics was vast, no serious attempt
was made by these writers to study or understands India's past or her culture. Writings on India
after the discovery of the sea route can be divided into three broad categories: writings based on
trade and the exploits in Indian soil, accounts by the missionaries and scholarly writings on
India. The official historiographers or those who wrote on European activities in the east
confined themselves to European politics as played out on Indian soil. If they mentioned aspects
of Indian life or society, it was only because of their strangeness. Similarly, travelers in India
noted down everything curious that met their eye and passed it on to a gullible west, which used
this data either to project Europe's superiority, or to criticize European institutions by setting it
against the idyllic east. “5
When in 1498 Vasco Da Gama succeeded in setting foot on Indian soil, he changed the
course of history in several ways. One of these was to lend a dimension of reality to the
European accounts of India, so that they now changed from the region of the fabulous and the
mysterious to that of reality; it was now a land peopled with real human beings. 6 It was also a
land that provided immense opportunity of trade and commerce; the famed spice trade was
already an attraction of the European merchants and traders. It was search for these wealth and
trade potential that brought traders and companies from almost all European countries. The
traders not only traded in India, attracted by the life of pomp and glory of the medieval Indian
aristocrats some of them even began to live in India.7

1
Early writings on India were of the activities of these European powers in India. Philippus
Baldaeus, a Dutch missionary, wrote on the economic and political conditions on the
Coromandel coast and Gujarat, often giving a garbled version of treaties and other events." A
more objective account was François Valentyn's Oud en Nieuw Oost-Indien (1724-6) in which
were reproduced certain contemporary documents of which there is no other record. Other
important Dutch works on India were Pieter Van Dam's official history of the Dutch company
(1701-3) written at the request of the Company's Directors, and Jan Huyghen Vans Linschoten's
Itinerary (1595-6) based upon the author's observations in Goa and its environs. Abbé Prévost's
Histoire Générale des Voyages (1741-61), one of the earliest French works about the east was a
mere compilation, in abridged form, of earlier accounts. Abbé Guyon's Histoire des Indes
Orientales Anciennes et Modernes (1744), on the other hand, was a history of early French
activity in India, and the role of the French East India Company and Dupleix in French politics in
India. The most celebrated of these works was Abbé Raynal's, translated into English in 1776 by
Justamond as A Philosophical and Political History of the Settlements and Trade of the
Europeans in the East and West Indies. The interest of the work lies in Raynal's observation that
the French should eschew a policy of aggression and appear as the protectors of Indians against
English tyranny. In such a case, argues the author, the French considered as the deliverers of
Indostan, would emerge from the state of humiliation into which their own misconduct had
plunged them. They would become the idols of the Princes and peoples of Asia. The earliest
Danish writings on the east were a pamphlet giving a brief account of Ove Gjedde's expedition to
India in 1618; in 1622 Jón Ólaffson gave a vivid account of an expedition to Tranquebar. A
significant Danish work was August Hennings' Gegenwärtiger Zustand der Besitzungen der
Europäer in Ostindien (1784-6) in three volumes, inspired by the incorrect information about
Danish trade given by Raynal in his Philosophical and Political History. Hennings pointed out
that in spite of the plethora of writing on this part of the world, the actual historical material was
scarce. “We shall never get a real knowledge of this great and important part of the world, and
we shall never be able to give a correct judgment of the prevailing conditions as long as our
travel-book authors endeavour to capture everything at a single glance."

The British, latecomers on the scene, were nevertheless more deeply involved in Indian affairs
than their European rivals. The early history of the East India Company was admirably
documented by Robert Orme in A History of the Military Transactions of the British Nation in
Indostan, the first volume of which was published in 1763 and the second in 1778, Orme was the
first official historian of the East India Company and so had access to the Company's records.
Although Orme's History was perhaps the best written and certainly the best known, there were
other accounts of the East India Company by contemporary writers. In 1779, for instance, was
published An Analysis of the Political History of India in which is considered the Present
Situation in the East, and the connection of its several Powers with the Empire of Great Britain
by Richard Joseph Sullivan." There must undoubtedly have been several such publications for
the catalogue of Orme's books, as prepared by Charles Wilkins after their presentation to the East
India Company, listed 'fifty-one volumes, containing one hundred and ninety tracts on the

2
subject of India, and the Honourable Company's affairs, from about the year 1750 down to the
year 1788. Beside political analysts, there were English travelers like Edward Terry, Ralph Fitch,
Sir Thomas Roe, Ovington, Henry Lord and Thomas Coryat, who gave to the English public
accounts of the strange land and people they had seen. England also had two great collections of
travelers’ tales; the first of these was by Richard Eden who published in 1553 A treatyse of the
newe India, and Richard Hakluyt who published the Voyages between 1598 and 1600. The two
collectors had their predecessors in the Italian Giovanni Battista Ramusio who had compiled
three volumes of Delle Navigational et Viaggi published between 1550-3; but with Hakluyt's
third and final volume in 1600, he gave to the world the most complete compendium of travel
literature of the time and, to the English nation, according to the historian Froude, its national
epic.

India a Civilization

As the Europeans were gradually discovering individually about the people, culture, literature,
history, heritage of India, a clearer picture of a very advanced civilization in India was being
unearthed. Civilization was the unit of history which the European considered the highest
because at that stage culture reaches its full fruition and spreads beyond its political limits. This
was the measure set by Europe during Renaissance. But as soon as the discovery of India’s rich
past was being discovered through an institution, the image of India was being officially
established. The institution was the Asiatic Society established by William Jones in 1774. A
number of scholarly minded Europeans were discovering various aspect of India through the
support of the Society. Asiatic Society was either through publication or sponsorship was
providing the official stamp to these discoveries. From a series of travelers’ tales, and attempts to
decry Indian customs and manners, a stage was when the west began not only to make efforts to
understand, but value India and her culture. In the first stage, scholarship was of little
consequence; the emphasis was on the exotic, the mysterious, and the fantastic. In the second,
although there was no lack of scholarship, it was scholarship with a purpose, and vested interest.
But now the western scholar approached India with the desire to learn. The most comprehensive
review of Indian literature before the foundation of the Asiatic Society of Bengal was provided
by the French Jesuit, Jean François Pons, in a survey sent to a brother missionary, Père Du
Halde, in 1740, Père Pons, who must have had some knowledge of Sanskrit, called his letter to
Père Halde an essay on certain aspects of Indian literature. The essay divided the entire range of
Sanskrit literature into ten sections and dealt with Sanskrit grammar, the dictionaries, treatises on
versification and poetry, history, the Vedas, mathematics and philosophy, He regarded Sanskrit
grammar as one of the most beautiful sciences that ever existed and was the first European to
speak of the six schools of Indian philosophy. Père Pons was also the first European to gather
from the Brahmans the fact that, though there was no historical literature in Sanskrit, there were
'several books which were called natak and which contained much ancient historical matter
without any admixture of fables': a line of enquiry which was later pursued by Sir William Jones
and led to the discovery and subsequent translation into English of Kalidasa's Sakuntala, By the

3
mid-eighteenth century, so rich had the Roman archives become in material on India, and so
significant was the missionaries' contribution in Indian studies that Cardinal Wiseman remarked
with some justification that it was in Rome that the languages and literature of the Hindus were
first systematically studied in Europe."

Jesuit scholarship on India has generally been criticized for its motivation the desire to use it for
preaching and conversion. And - indeed we often find them ridiculing local customs and
religions. Thus the Jesuit missionary Teixeira writing from Goa in 1558; 'Sometimes we spend
our time making fun of their gods, of their eating and drinking habits, and of the errors in their
religion, so that they will grow less fond of them."" Yet it cannot be denied that there were
missionaries like Père Pons, Father Paulinus and Father Stevens, who devoted a lifetime to
serious study, and at times their frank admission of the superiority of the Indian languages and
literatures suggests that their interest in these pursuits was eventually scholarly.

The first Englishman to have pursued Indian studies from a non-religious, non-political
standpoint was John Marshall, a servant of the East India Company, employed in the factory of
Kasimbazar in Murshidabad district. Not much is known of him, but sometime between 1668
and 1677 Marshall did an English translation of Sere Baugabut Pooran (Bhagavata Purana)
which was sent to England and deposited in the British Museum.

Alexander Dow (1735-79), another prominent Englishman to take up Indian studies before the
establishment of the Asiatic Society. Dow was also knowledgeable about the Hindu religion and
customs as he kept the company of learned Brahmans, and was one of the earliest writers in
modern times to mention the Vedas. Like Holwell, Dow tried to provide a corrective to earlier
impressions of India and stressed a new orientation to the study of India and its culture. In his
History he spoke of the difficulties in pursuing Indian studies:

Excuses may be formed for our ignorance concerning the learning religion and
philosophy of the Brahmins. Literary inquiries are by no means a capital object to many
of our adventurers in Asia. The few who have a turn for researches of that kind, are
discouraged by the very great difficulty in acquiring that language, in which the learning
of the Hindus is contained; or by that impenetrable veil of mystery with which the
Brahmins industriously cover their religious tenets and philosophy,"

About the time the last volume of Dow's History was published (1782), a definite change came
about in the intellectual climate of Bengal, the prime factor in the change being the personality of
Warren Hastings. The first important project which Hastings encouraged and patronized was A
Code of Gentoo Laws by Nathaniel Halhed. A more academic work of Halhed's was the
Grammar of the Bengal Language (1778) which made him the first grammarian of Bengali.

Warren Hastings and Nathaniel Halhed are commonly depicted as having designs on
strengthening the British hold on India through study of the laws and languages of the natives. A
Code of Gentoo Laws and to a lesser extent A Grammar of the Bengal Language are cited as

4
proofs of the assertion. What is less known, however, is that Halhed, besides being the author of
the Code and the Grammar, translated several ancient Sanskrit texts like the Bhagavat Purana,
Shivapurana, Brahmavaivarta Purana and even the Mahabharata into English. These were done
independently of state patronage and were works of pure scholarship.

Another great scholar and Orientalist to benefit from Hastings policy of promoting Indian studies
was Francis Gladwin (one of the founder members of the Asiatic Society), who in 1775 compiled
an English-Persian Vocabulary. In a letter to the Council of Fort William written in 1775
Gladwin expressed his doubts about the public utility of his work, adding that he had done the
work in his leisure hours taking great pains and incurring great expense, and had no objection to
printing it provided he did not sustain any loss by its publication. Hastings, however, saw to it
that Gladwin was given liberal assistance and his Vocabulary was published in 1780 at Malda.

The publication of Gladwin's Vocabulary was preceded by his translation of The Ayin Akbary, or
the Institutes of the Emperor Akbar, published in 1777. Gladwin's attention was drawn to this
work, as he tells us in the Preface, 'by the high encomiums which are bestowed upon it by the
learned Mr. Jones in his Persian Grammar. Another work on Indian history to appear in pre-
Asiatic Society days was The Civil and Military Institutes of Timour (1780), published jointly by
William Davy, who was Warren Hastings' Persian Secretary, and Joseph White, Laudian
Professor of Arabic at the University of Oxford.

The most prominent member of this early group of Orientalists was Charles Wilkins (1750-
1836), another founder-member of the Asiatic Society. Wilkins made his mark as a Sanskritist in
1785 with the publication of the English translation of the Bhagavad-Gita. His friend Nathaniel
Halhed had inspired him to learn Sanskrit but in the days preceding the formation of the Society,
Wilkins' main distinction was as a printer of Halhed's Grammar for which he acted as
'metallurgist, engraver, founder, and printer', and so he became India's Caxton.

As William Jones observed, to form a correct idea of the religion and the literature of the Hindus
it was necessary to forget 'all that has been written on the subject, by ancients or moderns, before
the publication of the Gita. Although in the Preface to his translation of the Gita Wilkins spoke
of Hastings' encouragement to the Company's servants 'to render themselves more capable of
performing their day by the study of the languages, [with] the laws and Customs of the natives.
First non-missionary European to master Sanskrit, a true scholar whose work inspired Sir
William Jones, the greatest Orientalist of the age. If the British intelligentsia was ready by this
time to study alien cultures, conditions in India were also favourable for such pursuits. Hastings
realised this weakness only too well. Thus while recommending the publication of Wilkins'
translation of the Bhagavad-Gita by the Court of Directors, He thus described the translation of
the Bhagavad-Gita as 'the gain of humanity, and added that the ancient writings of India would
'survive when the British dominion in India shall have long ceased to exist, and when the sources
which it once yielded of wealth and power are lost to remembrance.

5
This was the establishment of the Asiatic Society in Calcutta by Sir William Jones. One has only
to read the opening lines of Jones's inaugural address to the Society to realize that his vision gave
real content to what other historians and philosophers had merely talked about. Referring to his
journey to India on his appointment as a judge in Bengal, Jones said:

When I was at sea last August, I found one evening, on inspecting the observations of the
day, that India lay before us and Persia on the left, whilst a breeze from Arabia blew
nearly on our stern...

It gave me inexpressible pleasure to find myself in the midst of so noble an amphitheatre,

almost encircled by the vast regions of Asia, which has ever been esteemed the nurse of
sciences, the inventors of delightful and useful arts, the scene of glorious actions, fertile
in the productions of human genius, abounding in natural wonders, and infinitely
diversified in the forms of religion and government, in the laws, manners, customs, and
languages, as well as in the feature and complextions of men. I could not help remarking
how important and extensive a field was yet unexplored, and how many solid advantages
unimproved."

On the basis of these unearthing of a rich and diverse history and culture the Europe now began
to change their understanding of a exotic, mystic and land of magic, snake charmers and rope
tricks. It is now a land of one of the earliest urban civilization, a rich agrarian civilization,
republics, empires, most ancient literatures, religious currents, philosophies, epics, and every
material that make a civilization and hence the same Europeans who dismissed it as a primitive
culture now were compelled to designate as a civilization. Modern concept of civilization is a
product of European enlightenment. Western civilization has rooted itself in the Greek discovery
(belief) of man as the measure of things - the absolute value of individual self or ego. From this
stem the notions of the universality of the individual, and of the inalienable subjective sights of
the free citizen in democracy, who contains society or civilization in himself. In this framework,
the perennial quest of the dignity and majesty of the human individual is regarded as the ultimate
goal and supreme reality,8 a culture graduates to a civilization when it develops to such an extent
that it extends beyond its boundary and assimilates smaller cultures which accepts its hegemony
and is willing to flow as a tributary to the mainstream.

The discovery of Indian history started with the civil servants who constructed Indian history for
administrative convenience. They needed a solid data base for making the administration more
effective. Warren Hastings for example was of the view that if the East India Company was to
establish a firm and lasting regime in Indian territories its officers had to gain a sympathetic
understanding of the people whom they were governing.9 This was the background against which
writing of history of India was resorted to by the British. In fact there were very few British
authors of Indian history who were professional historians. The notable exception swho had the
professional touch were Ramsay Muir, P E Roberts, and H H Dodwell. William Jones had the
necessary academic background but Colebroke, H H Wilson and James Princept were just drawn

6
to Indology. Thus if the indological works of the Asiatic Society were found to be free of
imperialistic prejudices it was not just because these Orientalists were exceptions but because
imperialism as an ideology had not yet pervaded the academic domain. Imperialism as an
ideology did not grow in the merchant capitalist phase of British imperialism but in the period of
finance capitalism. It manifested in the development of the concepts like white men’s burden,
civilizing mission, paternalism, utilitarianism and so on. In other words by this time imperialism
had been able to create a colonial mind and a colonial ethos which not only generated legitimacy
but also helped to perpetuate itself. ‘True imperialism’ wrote Curzon ‘was an attempt to diminish
human misery, oppression, poverty, inhumanity, bigotry, arbitrary rule, superstition, ignorance,
and disease in those parts of the world for which Great Britain is responsible.’ 10 The early
British historians were content with the glamour and drama of political history of India from
Plassey to Mutiny, from Dupleix, to the Sikhs. Gradually when the raj was established they
turned to the ‘less glamorous but more sold ground of administration.’ 11 From then on the theme
of this school of historiography was not more how India was conquered by how it was ruled. 12

Claim to Nationhood

But the Indians were not content with having a civilizational past but wanted to transform into a
nation. Nation by the nineteenth century had emerged identity and nationalism as the most
powerful discourse in the world. The Indians wanted to assert their power of nationhood.
Therefore Indians declared themselves into a nation. But when the colonized civilization of India
wanted to transform itself into a nation, it alarmed the British. In the pleasant winter of 1885,
seventy-two individuals from different parts of India reached Bombay with the novel idea of
forming representative political platform for Indians which would be national in character. It was
no ordinary event. These individuals not only represented different regions of the country, they
also belonged to a variety of castes, communities and creed. The most significant feature of this
assembly was of course the claim that it was ‘national’. It was a momentous event in the political
history of India. The entire nineteenth century, the Indian elite had been working towards this
goal. After the failure of Indian Association to emerge as a ‘national’ body, such an organization
seemed to be a distant goal. But this landmark development would now challenge they very
foundation of the postulates advocated by the colonial pundits that India was not a political entity
but a mere geographical expression.
Assertion of nationhood
At the end of the nineteenth century, a group of nationalist leaders, who were described as
‘representative of Indian nationalism’, made an organized and systematic study of the colonial
economy vis-à-vis the decline of India; they found that, by their very nature, British rule and
Indian interests were contradictory to each other. 13They therefore demanded fundamental
changes in the existing economic relationship between India and Britain and suggested certain
measures. These remedied were basically ‘anti-imperialist’ and ‘rooted in the desire for a
genuine national economic policy,’ which were determined by the interests of India. 14These
proposals were naturally unacceptable to the Raj. They then set out to make the people of India

7
conscious of the bond of common economic destiny and thereby help to weld them in a common
nationalism. ‘They gave a precise nationalist form to the incoherent economic aspirations of the
people and spread the ideas of economic development. They inculcated among the people the
desire to increase the economic wealth of the country, showed them the ways of doing so by
putting forward a well-rounded programme of economic development and pointed out the
obstacles--both economic and political--that needed to be overcome if economic objectives were
to be realized… (Thus) they laid strong and enduring foundations for the national movement to
grow upon.’15
Likewise, the Indian leadership also took up the cause of Indian nationhood at the discursive
level. It first tried to combat imperialist arguments to be followed by the presentation of its own
case. The nationalist discourse claimed, as early as 1883, that ‘the people of the different
provinces have learnt to feel for one another and that a common bond of unity and fellow-feeling
is rapidly being established among them.’ 16Inaugurating the Indian National Congress, its first
President declared its objectives to be ‘consolidating the sentiments of national
unity.’17Inaugurating the Indian National Congress in 1885, its first president put forward the
claim of Indian nationhood rather tentatively in the following words: ‘. . . if community of
sentiments, community of feelings and community of wants enabled anyone to speak on behalf
of others, than assuredly they (Indian National Congress) might justly claim to be the people of
India.’

By the time of the 1886 session, the tentativeness had gone, and a more pronounced, emphatic
and clearer declaration was made wherein Rajendralal Mitra said, amidst cheers, ‘It is highly
gratifying to me that we are here assembled together, delegates from the north, from the south,
from the east and from the west—all anxious to join as members of one nation for the good of
our country. Diverse as we are in origin, in religion, in language, and in our manners and
customs, but are not less than members of the same nation. We live in the same country;we are
subjects of the same Sovereign and our good and evil depend entirely on the state of government
and the laws passed in the country. Whatever is beneficial to the Hindus is equally beneficial to
the Mohammedans and whatever is injurious to the Hindus is equally injurious to the followers
of Mohammed. Nations are not made of sects but of tribes bound together in one political bond.
We are all bound by the same political bond and therefore we constitute one Nation. ’18

The tentativeness had disappeared, and a more pronounced, more emphatic and clearer
declaration was made in the next session (1886) wherein Rajendralal Mitra found it ‘gratifying’
that people from different parts of the country have assembled ‘as members of one nation’. ‘We
are all bound together by the same political bond and therefore we constitute one nation.’ 19 This
discourse then went on to counter the colonialist propaganda that the ‘Congress’ was a
movement of the ‘microscopic minority’ and that the native princes and the Muslims were ‘as a
body against the Congress’. This accusation was described as ‘fabricated’, which its ‘opponents’
were ‘obliged to have recourse to the desperate expedient of putting forward these few initiatives
to show that the princes of India are against us: they stand self-condemned and need no

8
refutation from us (and) the Mohammadans of this country, I certainly can assure you that as a
body they are not against us.’20 It continued that ‘the supposed rivalry between the Musalmans
and Hindus is a convenient decoy to distract attention and to defer the day of reform.’ 21The idea
of a microscopic minority and that the ‘united voice’ of the Congress was ‘the voice only of a
certain portion of the people and not of the masses’was ‘floated as a reproach against the
Congress.’22 After all, the Congress members were the representatives of the masses who were
still not ‘capable of giving articulate expression to defined political demands.’ 23The theory of the
microscopic minority was ‘based upon a gratuitous and unwarrantable assumption of facts. It
presupposes a necessary antagonism in matters with which the Congress is concerned; between
the educated and uneducated and that there are the former cannot represent the latter. It
presupposes that the educated have apathy for the uneducated and that the former do not
represent the latter. It presupposes that a foreign administrator in the service of the government
knows more about the wants of the masses than their educated countrymen.’ 24 Going back to the
Hindu-Muslim issue, the discourse emphasized that even though there might be differences
between the two, ‘on that platform on which we meet, such a conflict cannot exist’ because ‘the
points wherein we differ are not our topic, we do not discuss each others’ social, political or
domestic arrangements, nor is it our province to pronounce our opinion on the comparative
merits of the tenets of various Hindus and various Muslim sects. We meet on a platform on
which Hindus and Muslims are brothers, as subjects of the same sovereign, as governed by the
same laws, as amenable to the control of same officials…logic and commonsense alike point to
the conclusion that this antagonism between the Hindus and Mohammadans is a myth.’ 25 This
school also challenged the theory that a country with numerous religions and languages could not
form a nation. Such a view was described as ill-considered and ill-intentioned. It said that ‘the
people, who have for ages and generations, settled and domiciled in a country, with more less the
same ethnic identity at bottom and more or less unified by being continually subjected to
identical environments and to the inevitable process of assimilation…Affirm this standard and
you have an Indian nation. Deny it and you have a nation nowhere on the face of the earth.’ 26 In
December 1891, Gokhale, as one of the editors of Sudhaker, wrote that ‘the Congress is
established to make India truly a nation’ and by December, 1895, he proclaimed that ‘all the
elements which go to make a common united nation are now present with us.’ 27 He agreed that
‘differences’ did exist amongst Indians but ‘they are getting less angular everyday’. After all,
the‘welding process of fusion always requires and develops a great amount of heat.’ 28
Surendranath Banerjee agreed with this theory of fusion process and called India a nation-in-the
making. He appealed to the English masters to change the character of their rule in India, to
liberalise it, to shift its foundation, to adapt it to the newly developed environments of the
country and the people, so that in the fullness of time, India may find its place in the great
confederacy of free states, English in their origin, English in their character, English in their
institutions, rejoining in their permanent and indissoluble union with England a glory to the
mother country and honour to the human race. 29Pheroze Shah Mehta saw a colonial ploy behind
the British tirade against the Congress. He said,‘Baffled in the attempt to disunite us, our
opponents had recourse to a measure of extraordinary virulence. They raised against us a cry as
9
terrible as the cry of heresy which was sometimes raised in the old days of the inquisition to
crush an obnoxious personage, otherwise unimpeachable and invulnerable. They raised against
us the cry of sedition and disloyalty. It was a cry well calculated to create alarm and uneasiness
even among persons otherwise well disposed towards us.’30
Lala Lajpat Rai participated in the debate to refute the colonial discourse on Indian nationalism.
He said in 1908, ‘India was hitherto said to be only a geographical expression. It has now begun
to aspire, under the guidance of an all-wise providence, to a unified political existence and to a
place in the comity of nations, It is true that communities are divided from communities, sects
from sects and provinces from provinces by differences of religion, language and customs. The
wave of western civilization, however, with its unifying influence is levelling down these
differences and creating a community of interests and feeling which is a precursor of a new dawn
in our life.’31
Nationalists like Aurobindo not only upheld nationalism as a creed but even took it to the level
of religion. In a speech in Bombay in 1908, he said, ‘there is a creed in India today which calls
itself nationalism….Nationalism is not a mere political programme. Nationalism is a religion that
has come from God. Nationalism is a creed in which you shall have to live. If you are going to
bea nationalist, if you are going to assent to the religion of Nationalism, you must do it in the
religious spirit. It is a religion by which we are trying to realize God in the nation, in our fellow
countrymen.’32
Ambikacharan Majumdar countered the colonial thesis of India being a non-nation due to its
multiplicity of races, languages, castes and creeds in the following manner,
‘A nationality is no longer either a religious or social federation but a political unit. Diverse
races professing different forms of religion and following distinct varieties of manners, customs
and traditions easily submit to a common political faith to work out their common destiny.’ 33He
then went on to show how the Picts, Scots, Saxons, Normans, Protestants and Catholics together
formed the ‘Great British Nation’.34
While combating the colonial theory that under the British rule India had made economic
advancements, the nationalist discourse pointed to the growing impoverishment of India and the
essentially exploitative character of colonial rule, It set out to understand ‘colonialism’ as a
system, offer an official critique addressed to the economic drain and consistent
impoverishment of India and the non-development of Indian agriculture and industry and
argued that there was a central contradiction between India and British interests. 35Dadabhai
Naoroji wrote in 1905 that ‘without self-government, the Indians can never get rid of their
present drain and the consequent impoverishment, misery and destruction.’ 36 Gandhi wrote to
the Viceroy in 1930. ‘And why do I regard the British rule as a curse? It has impoverished the
dumb millions by a system of progressive exploitation and by a ruinously expensive military
and civil administration which the country can never afford. It has reduced us to political
serfdom.’37 The Independence Day Declaration on 26 January 1930 proclaimed, ‘The British
government in India has not only deprived the Indian people of their freedom but has based
itself on the exploitation of the masses and ruined India economically, politically, culturally and
spiritually.’On the question of the fate of India on British withdrawal, this nationalist discourse
10
 was initially gullible to the colonial ideas.“We are also aware that with the decline of the British
supremacy we shall have anarchy, war and rapine. The Mohammedans will try to recover their
lost supremacy, the Hindu races and chiefs will fight amongst themselves. The lower castes,
who have come under the vivifying influences of western influence, are scarcely likely to yield
without a struggle to the dominion of higher castes. And we have Russia and France waiting for
their opportunities… (But) with England’s help we shall and under her guidance alone we can
attain national unity and freedom.’38
The above interaction between two warring ideologies sought to be a show of power. The Indian
nationalist discourse attempted to proclaim its power by declaring itself a nation. This power
had been derived from the unification and integration of a people into a nation. Interestingly, it
was not a response to imperialist challenge, but a challenge to imperialism itself and it was left
to the imperialists to counter this challenge.
The construction of nationhood in India was a political practice. It began as an endeavour to
counter political exercise by contesting the propositions that the colonialists offered. In the
internalization of the western colonial discourse on nation and nationalism, one could decipher
that the western-educated Indian intelligentsia was not only internalizing the western paradigm
of nation and nationalism but also responding and trying to counter the colonial challenges on
the issue of the nature of Indian nationhood. A critic pointed out,‘So complete was the power of
imperialist discourse…that even when a kind of superiority was claimed for traditions by
rejecting the west, the terms by which India’s superiority was proposed were those that the west
valued. …the reproductive power of the imperialist discourse was so immense that it could even
convert challenges to its authority into instruments of its own perpetuation.’ 39 It is interesting
that the construction of nationhood for India and its claims for decolonization was based on the
discourse of the colonial west itself. It was the application of the theory of steel cutting steel.
Nationalist School
The school which grew up as a contradiction to the Imperialist School was the nationalist school
which originated during the colonial period but outlasted that period. Deeply imbued with a
sense of patriotism and the ideology of nationalism this school set out to challenge the
imperialist theories about Indian nation. An unnamed English gentlemen felt that more than
anything else, it was the history of India written by the British that the Indians resented most. 40
The first task they therefore set out to do was the rewriting of Indian national history.
The nationalist writings on the question of Indian nationhood had three basic trends. The first
group of writers asserted that the foundation of India nation was laid down in the earliest period
of its history and it had always maintained its unity since. 41 In fact the unity movement in India
was a part of the process which began in the earliest period of its history when people came into
possession of a well-defined territory which came to be looked upon as their mother land. the
achievement of Indian unity was as old as 325 B.C. – the Gupta period. This process
strengthened with the passage of time. Through Hinduism and Hindu culture was the essence and
unifying force of this nation, Muslim rule strengthened it by imposing a common central
government from above without destroying the integrity of the Hindu culture.

11
The second category of writers emphasised that the rise of Indian nationality and nationalism
was a consequence of British rule. 42 For them India was a nation-in-the-making and the colonial
rule had hastened the process. 43 It described the introduction of British educational institutions,
Western Political ides and institutions, English as the lingua franca, railway network facilitating
social and political intercourse, the newly introduced judicial system, the press, the post and
telegraph network as the chief agencies of the creation of India national consciousness. Thus
India ceased to be just a geographical entity and there grew a feeling of nationality in India. ‘It
gave India the spirit of nationality’ which radically changed the political conceptions of the
Indian people accustomed to absolutist rules for centuries. It stimulated a spirit of national and
racial self-introspection, which in turn, led the Indian mind to attribute the backwardness of the
country to the evils in its social and religious institutions and ultimately provoked attempts at
reform which ended in disillusionment with British rule.
The third category of writings discussed the baneful effect of British rule in India. 44 It saw
British rule as an exploitative force which resulted in the destruction of native industries, caused
growing impoverishment in the country and induced a vast drain of wealth to England. These
writers condemned the exploitative British rule and considered its impact on India as detrimental.
Implicit in their contention is that the rise of India nationality and nationalism was the Indian
reaction to colonial exploitation.
The fourth category of writings includes those to whom Indian nationalism was not just political
but emotional preoccupation as well. Hence they were pained by the excessive emphasis of the
aspect of ‘synthesis’ to disprove the theory that diversity made India a non-nation, put forward
by certain schools. It was a fascinating nationalisation from the point of view of pragmatism for
the leaders who were emotional about Indias ‘oneness’ but at the same found ‘diversity’ a nality.
Jawaharlal Nahru was a representative of this school. He admitted that ‘diversity’ in India was
‘tremendous’ and such difference can always be noticed even within a national group. But as far
as India was concerned, ‘some kind of a dream of unity had occupied the mind of India since the
dawn of civilization. This unity was ‘something deeper, within its folds, the widest tolerance of
belief and custom was practised and every variety acknowledged and encouraged it. 45 To sum
him up, India is a geographical and economic entity, a cultural unity amidst diversity, a bundle of
contradictions held together by strong but invisible threads. 46
But this was not said with finality. The advancing of the pro-nation theory and the
threats of probable partition of the country was countered by Nehru in the following manner:
“Whether India is properly to be described as one nation or two or more really does not
matter, for the idea of nationality has been almost divorced from statehood. The national
state is too small a unit today and small states can have no independent existence. It is
doubtful if even many of the larger states can have real independence. The national state
is thus giving place to the multi states or large federations. 47

Similar understanding during the same was provided by Rajni Palmedutt from a different
ideological standpoint. 48 On the question of Indian nationality he initially tackled the new British
administrator-turned-historians who denied the possibility of India ever becoming of nation and
12
called it and Imperialist propaganda. He alluded to the existence of another school of British
Indologists who showed that despite the diversities, India always had an ideal political identity. 49
Regarding the multiplicity of languages, religion, cast etc. Palmedutt asserted that such diversity
did not contradict the basic unity of India ; problem of languages was also being gradually faded
with the rise of Hindi or Hindustani as the Langua franca of the country and the number of
languages as the given by the imperialists were highly exaggerated and over-emphasised. ‘In the
modern period’ he wrote ‘the reality of Indian nation can in practice no longer be denied’. 50 The
existence of an Indian nation was proved by the unity of the Indian people seen in their struggle
for freedom against Imperialism. 51
The existence of an Indian nation did not mean the existence of a ‘single homogenous
whole’. On the contrary on the grounds of diversity India’s multi-national character should be
recognised. The Indian National Congress had already recognised it but, Palmedutt felt, it
stopped short of recognizing the national character of these socio-linguistic groups of India by
opposing the full right for their self-determination. 52 Writing at the end of the colonial period
A.R. Desai, from the same ideological standpoint recognised the multi-nationality character of
Indian nations. 53 But, he wrote. It is a part of history of all members of nations. ‘It had a ‘genetic
cause’ – i.e. it was a ‘genetic’ product of the rise of capitalism. The colonial transformation of
India from a medieval community to a modern entity was the objective basis of the rise of Indian
nation. But the British attempt at supporting feudal end conservation forces, subordination of the
Indian economy to the British metropolis stunted development of the modern Indian economy,
and provided shelter to communal and reactionary forces distorting the growth of Indian nation.
As a result of the transformation of Indian economy, emergence of Industrial and
Commercial classes and Educational upliftment of the people of Indian, the various nationalities
of India inspired by their urge to self-determination, well to live and develop their corporate life
freely. Launched separate movements. The movement for separate states was one movement
these movements ran parallel to the Indian nationalist movement. These agitations were
progressive because did not desire secession from India union. It was a desire to unite, on a
national scale with the rest of India and bring the freedom of the country nearer. Such
movements did not clash with the concept of Indian State or Indian nationalist movement. But
there were reactionary streaks too in some of these movements. The commercial or Industrial
interests among the awakened nationalities sometimes incited the masses against their trading
and industrial rivals belonging to other nationalities and passing it off as a national movement.
Such movements were reactionary as it weakened the urge for a national unity and a united
nationalist movement. The Muslims were not a separate nationality but a national minority of
India. The national minorities are generally those who were united by a common religion or
mixture some specific grievances; they are interspersed over the entire state territory. They were
not a separate nationality as they did not share similar economic life nor speak the same
language. This was the state of Muslims in India. Taking advantage of the relatively slower
development of professional and educational classes and their slower observation in the
employment sector the rising consciousness of Muslims was channelized into communal and
separatist channels by the communalist forces.
13
Refuting the National claim
The development could not be ignored by the British. Initially they were dismissive about it. then
it developed ‘safety valve theory’ showing that the Congress was a device to control the
rebelliousness of Indians was actually a machination of the British themselves citing the
patronization of Allan Octavian Hume in the formation of the Congress. But the rapid progress
of the ‘national’ Congress prompted them set out to do some serious political practice of
rhetorically denying nationhood to India. They did so by citing the multiplicity of culture and
diversity of India. The variety of people, different in language, religion, ethnicity, race, caste etc.
appropriated to deny nationhood to the same people.54 The same phenomenon of ‘diversity’
which astonished and enamoured the British initially, was used to provide that India was not a
nation, when there were ‘ominous’ signs of the rising Indian nationalism. 55
It is interesting that on the one hand we find on the eve of the foundation of the Indian National
Congress, Sir John Seeley telling his English audience that India was not a political entity but a
mere geographical expression and in fact the very notion of the existence of an Indian nation was
a ‘vulgar error’. 56 On the other hand Seeley also warned that the next time a ‘mutiny’ occurred in
India it would be no mere mutiny but the expression of a universal feeling of nationality and
would mean the end of all hopes of preserving the British Empire in India. 57 Similarly John
Stratchey who strongly put forward that the first and foremost thing to learn about India was that
it never possessed any sort of unity nor can possess in future, 58 in the same breath cautioned, that
we are liable to such ‘dangers’ as this (1857 rebellion), and a ‘terrible conflagration may be
lighted up’ any time. 59
The 1857 uprising came as a great jolt to the complacency of the British Raj. Try athey might,
they could not overlook the fact that this event was confined neither to one region nor to any
section of the people. The very fact of the people rallying behind the tottering symbol that was
Bahadur Shah Zafar proved that the sense of nationalism in India, nascent as it was, could not
be overlooked by the ideologues and proponents of the Raj. They took it as their duty to explain
this event to the British public and to assure them, as well as their Indian subjects, that India had
never been a nation in the past and nor was it so now. By emphasizing the divisive tendencies of
the Indian society, they tried to console themselves and to convince the Indians that the country
could never adopt a united stance on any issue and particularly against the British masters.
This tendency of the imperialist writers was most evident during the period from 1858 to 1890.
Thus, in 1882, we find John Seeley telling an audience that India was not a political entity but a
mere geographical expression.60In fact, he called the very concept of an Indian nation ‘a vulgar
error’.61 Sir John Strachey also told a similar audience at the Cambridge University that the first
and foremost thing to learn about India was that there never was an India that possessed any sort
of unity.62 Despite the unifying effect of the British administration, it was impossible, John
Strachey said, ‘that the men of Punjab, Bengal or Madras would never feel that they belonged to
one nation.’63 This theme of India not being a nation nor being able to become one was echoed
not only in Britain but also in India. Thus, the Marquis of Dufferin, at a speech delivered at St.
Andrew’s Diner in Calcutta on 20 November 1888 called Indian nationality a ‘fictitious
14
nationality, a tessellation of incomplete races, religions, languages, interests and above all two
mighty political communities--the Hindus and the Mohammedans’. 64 The officially appointed
Simon Commission (1930) reported that in India there was growing a ‘sense of unity’. Though
the British rule had made it impossible to talk of India as a single entity, it still did not observe
the variegated assemblage of races and creeds which make up the whole called India. 65 A review
of the Simon Commission found it absurd that a ‘minor continent of 560 native states,
168,006,000 Hindus, 60,000,0000 Muslims and 10,000,000 depressed classes could claim
nationhood’.66 Similar sentiments were expressed by other writers like Valentine Chirol, Alfred
Lyall and W.W. Hunter, and policy makers like Curzon and J.R. McDonald. 67 Even while
trying to convince themselves, their British audience and their Indian subjects, the imperialist
writers seemed to be well aware of the fact that this was not wholly so. Hence, we find that on
the one hand there are these wishful pronouncements and on the other a realization of the reality
and a conscious effort to sow the seeds of and promote divisive tendencies, which were to an
extent present in the Indian situation. Hence, we find Lieutenant Colonel John Coke, the
Commandant of Moradabad saying, ‘Our endeavour should be to uphold in full force the
separation which exists between the different religions and races not to endeavour to amalgamate
them. Divide et imperashould be the principle of Indian government.’ 68 Lord Elphinstone, in a
similar manner, wrote in a minute of 14 May 1889, ‘Divide et impera was the old Roman motto,
and it should be ours.’69
Yet, a third dimension to the issue lay in the fact that those very writers who tried to convince the
public that India was not a nation, seemed to admit the potential power of the unity of the
country. Thus, Sir John Seeley, who had called the concept of an Indian nation a ‘vulgar error’,
said, ‘The moment a mutiny is but threatened which shall be no mere mutiny, but the expression
of a universal feeling of nationality, at that moment, all hope is at an end, as all desires ought to
be at an end, of preserving our empire’.70Similarly, John Strachey wrote, ‘It is hardly less true
now than it was in 1857 that we are liable at all times to such dangers as this. Nothing is too
foolish or too extravagant for general acceptance--this ought never to be forgotten. Ominous
signs from time to time appear which ought to remind us how easily in India, a terrible
conflagration may be lighted up. There is no limit to the liability of such a population to be
influenced by the assurances and suggestions of religious fanatics or political agitators or to be
disturbed by interference with its prejudice and belief’. 71The officially accepted Indian Statutory
Commission Report was more emphatic. ‘It would be a profound error to allow geographical
diversities or statistics of population or complexities of religion and caste and language to belittle
the significance of what is called the Indian Nationalist Movement.’ 72
What is implied here is, that during the post-mutiny period (up to 1920) India may not have
asked the British to ‘quit’ but the rise and growth of the national sentiment against British rule
could be sensed and felt. As such, the propagation of the theory that India was not a nation was
only a response to the challenge posed by Indian nationalism, which had deepened the crisis
already faced by the declining empire. It had a two-fold objective: one, it served the purpose of
telling the Indians that their nationalism was bogus. With the prevailing diversities and divisions
India, which never was a nation, would never become one. Two, it also served the purpose of
15
assuring English audiences that there was no imminent threat to the empire resulting from such
events.
The times in which Strachey and Seeley wrote and expressed their fears, seemed to take birth in
the shape of the Indian National Congress and the nationalist movement organized by it. Once
again, as duringthe 1857 uprising, the flames of discontent seemed to have travelled almost
throughout the country. The unity thatthe imperialists wrote and spoke about as having never
existed nor likely to exist, seemed to take a firm shape. The imperialist writers could neither shut
their eyes to the situation nor do could they go on writing in the same fashion. To come to terms
with reality, yet another strategy was devised. Now admitting to themselves, and to their Indian
public, that there were stirrings of nationalism present in the Indian situation, they tried to
counter the nationalist movement, to delude themselves by calling the political resistance against
the Raj as elitist in nature and confined to the upper echelons of the Indian society. 73The 1857
revolt was denigrated as a machination of the Muslims to revive the old Mughal rule and the
initiative of forming ‘national’ organisationsas a work of the western-educatedmiddle class,
representing a microscopic minority of Hindu Indians.This served the purpose of alienating the
Muslims in the first place and then keepingthe Muslims away from merging with growing tide of
nationalism.Thus, Lord Dufferin described the new-born Congress as representative of only a
‘microscopic minority’. To Valentine Chirol, the ‘so-called national movement was engineered
by a small group of the traditional society, who had, in their view, the particular interests of their
own class, not the general interests of the people.’ 74Ethnographers like H. H. Risley provided
data that Indians would find it impossible to form a representative nation.In his first work on The
Castes and Tribes of India, he showed that although Aryans who migrated to Europe had easily
intermarried with the local Turanian races to form a national community, in India, they refused
to do so with the indigenous black tribals, thereby restraining the entry of such elements into the
upper castes. In his later work, People of India, he used the same premise that such conditions
rendered India incapable of forming any modern nation, which therefore required the British rule
to inculcate a sense of nationhood in India. 75
Lord Meston exemplified a similar attitude when he wrote that the Indian national movement was
‘not a movement of a people united by some common danger or intolerable burden or all-
consuming ideal. It is rather a revolt of a privileged class against modern influences, which are
threatening its social predominance.’76 The rise of nationalism was even ridiculed as a sign of a
‘monkey mentality.’77B.T. McCully expanded this to present a systematic thesis of the English-
educated middle class base of Indian nationalism. 78 At the same time, they also tried to counter
the nationalist charge regarding the prosperous times of the Mughals before British rule and the
exploitative role of the Raj.79As the nationalist movement grew in intensity, the British had to
recognise the reality that they confronted, but they did so by taking the credit. They propagated
the theory that it was the British who integrated and united India for the first time and gave it the
sense of being a unified nation. 80
With the war-clouds looming large over Europe from 1935 onwards, the imperialist ideologues
could see a microscopic minority being able to convert practically the entire nation into a
cauldron of discontent. There was no running away from the situation, for India had risen to
16
combat the Raj through movements like Civil Disobedience and Quit India. The task before them
was to explain away the situation. This they did by saying that it was British rule that had
prepared India for self-rule;after having fulfilled its pious function of engendering a strong
national sentiment in India, it was now prepared to move out. According to R. J. Moore, ‘despite
Congress preparation for the revolution in August 1942, it (the announcement of Indian
independence) was reaffirmed as official policy finally to be honoured by the Labour Governors
of the failing bank of empire just five years later.’ 81 Along with this policy, what the imperialist
writers tended to emphasize was the fact that it was the benevolent rule of the British that had
provided India its administrative unity, features of a modern state and the most advanced judicial
system.82The British rule was a preparation for India’s self-government and, under this regime,
India was progressing towards the goal of constitutional freedom. 83 Henry Hallam (1777-1859)
started the tradition by sharing the belief that the central theme in English history was the
development of liberal institutions.84According to Hallam, British history was that of the
development and dissemination of liberal institutions. Interestingly, even when looking at remote
ages, they found the existence of such institutions. The school greatly exaggerated the
importance of parliaments of bodies, real or imagined. They tended to interpret all political
struggles in terms of parliamentary situations in Britain in the nineteenth century. William
Stubbs saw British parliamentary institutions as one of humanity’s greatest inventions. John
Richard Green (1837-1883) believed in the essentially democratic character of the English
people.85 Ideologues of the Whig school, like Reginald Coupland, believed that is was the sacred
duty of the English people to prepare the ‘natives’ in their colonies in constitutional politics,that
would train them in self-rule, which was the goal of British colonialism.
The rise of communalism in India provided more ammunition to their armoury. They used
the issue of communalism to vindicate their stand that India could never become one nation and
any hope of an Indian nationality was a distant dream. They used it not only as a weapon to
cripple the ideological strength of Indian nationalism but also to predict that if the English
withdrew from India, the country would break into several sovereign nations.There was a
prediction that if the British withdrew from India, ‘Punjab would take a large portion of the
country as it is near it. Nepal would take another part and the ruling chiefs would take all the
territory around them and son on until perhaps our friends from the frontier would come down
upon us and sweep us or perhaps another Eastern nation might attack our seaports…the
Mohammedan would undoubtedly endeavour to recover their ancient ascendency over the
Hindus and anarchy and chaos would reign throughout India from the Himalayas to Cape
Comorin…men would be on horseback and one month after that, there would not be a rupee or a
virgin left in all Bengal.’ 86

Perspective in Free India

The period of Indian freedom struggle was also the period of awakenings of small and big
nationalities, ethnic groups that India consisted of. these awakenings often manifested in the
form of political agitation and movements for various nationality rights and ambitions thought it
did not generally come into conflict with the anti-colonial national movement.
17
The reality of 1947 however was far more different. The circumstances and the vision of the
‘tryst with destiny’ that the people of India had been found to be entirely different when acted
out. At the stroke of midnight’ when the world was asleep, India woke to freedom. But it was a
traumatic freedom. The country was partitioned signifying the triumph of the two-nation theory.
The pain and carnage that followed partition was unprecedented. The communists called it a
‘false freedom’ (ye azadi jhoota hai87). Nehru in 1944-45 had felt that ‘the unity of India was no
longer an emotional experience which overpowered me. That essential unity had been so
powerful that no political division, no disaster or catastrophes had been able overcome it’. But in
1947, he headed a government who executed the partition of the country and as the Prime
Minister of the partitioned nation had to reinforce people’s faith in the unity and integrity of the
country as well as rationalize the partition. That was both a psychological and an administrative
crisis. 88 His Home Minister Sardar Patel did so in the following manner:
“I felt that if we did not accept partition, India would be split into many bits and would be
completely ruined. My experience of office for one year convinced me that the way we
have proceeding, would lead to disaster. We would not have one partition but several” 89
But Nehru acknowledged that the calculations had gone wrong. Partition which had been
accepted by the Congress as a drastic way of communal hatred had only multiplied it and had the
congress anticipated this they might well have preferred to keep India united and distraught. He
was honest enough to acknowledge his own errors of judgement. 90 He said ‘the battle of our
political freedom is fought and won. But another battle, no less important than what w have won,
still faces us. It is a battle with no outside enemy …… It is a battle with our own selves”. But
Nehru continued to believe that the decision to partition India was a short-term political solution
which could not override cultural affinities and economic ‘compulsions. So the Govt. of India
disavowed any intentions of harming Pakistan or treating it as an enemy and expressed their
hope that when the current turmoil ended, the two states might unite by the free will of their
people’s. 91
His belief in the inherent unity of Indian civilization was still retained and he continued to
project the India of historical imagination to his countrymen as well as while dealing with
foreign countries. A white paper prepared by the Historical Division of the Ministry of external
Affairs quoted the Vishnu Purana to support the argument that the Country South of Himalayas
and North of Ocean is called ‘Bharat’ and ‘all born in it are called Bharatiya or Indians’. 92
Similar references were given from the Rigveda, Mahabharata, the Ramayana and other Sanskrit
texts, all pointing to the cultural and political unity of India from the encircling Northern
Mountains to the Southern ocean. Over a boundary-dispute between China and India, Nehru
rejected Chon-Eu-Laii’s argument that the existing boundary of India was an artifact of
Imperialism. He insisted that the boundary of India was settled long before the coming of the
British by ‘history, geography, custom and tradition. ‘Anyone with a knowledge of history would
know that the frontier of India is traditional and has been associated with India’s culture and
tradition for the past two thousand years or so and has been an intimate part of India’s life and
thought’.

18
As far as internal affairs were concerned, the reality of 1947 also proved to be arduous.
Independence ushered in new hopes and aspirations for the various nationalities and ethnic
groups. They eagerly waited for an immediate reorganization of their state units on ethno-linguist
lines, recognition to their respective languages; measures to help them get rid of the dominations
of bigger nationalities and refusal to accept Hindu as the national language. The national
government’s tactics to postpone the issue further complicated the political situation. Claims and
counter-claims were followed by plethora of demands and counter-demands and secessionism.
Violence and death followed as inevitable corollary. 93
This changed socio-political environment also necessitated a fresh look at the nationality
situation of the country. Historiographically 1947 did not mark any significant change but the
impact of the intellectual freedom that came with Independence was visible in the writings that
appeared from the 1960’s onwards. It must however be said that the volume of writings have
been unbelievably small considering the immensity of the complicated nationalities question
India had faced ; nor was the theme a dominant one. No wonder nationality question in India
which has the potentialities of developing into an independent subject of study has yet to see
significant advancement.

Characterizing India: Problems and Perspectives

The logical starting point of the debate was to find viable definition of a nation and
nationality. In this regard Stalin’s definition, through controversial, has by far been the most
acceptable to the India authors. Firstly, due to the lack of many alternatives and secondly
because, despite controversies, the history of the emergence of nations hand shown that by and
large Stalin’s definition did hold good, 94 bearing few exceptions. Stalin theorized that common
language, territory, economic life and psychological make-up constitute a stable community o
people into a nation. The cultural attributes apart, the significant aspect of this definition is that
Stalin talked about an already existing ‘stable community of people’ which subsequently from a
nation. Although not every stable community from nations, all the nations must be a ‘Stable
Community’ before they emerge as a nation because a ‘casual and loosely connected
conglomeration of groups which fall apart or join together’ according to circumstances cannot
form a historical category like nation. Moreover this ‘Stable Community’ also should have been
‘historically constituted’. In other words, the community concerned (which has to be a definite
community, not just racial or tribal) must have gone through the process of historical evolution
before they appear as a nation. It had to have a common memory, common history. 95
But can a nation emerge at any point in time? Stalin was categorical here. To him a nation is not
merely a historical category but a historical category belonging to a definite epoch – the epoch of
rising capitalism. 96 The process of the constitution of people into nations start with the process
of elimination of feudalism and development of capitalism when trade and means of
communications develop, large towns spring up; the development of modern press and theatre
and the democratic representative political institutions take place thereby strengthening national
sentiments. 97 The intelligentsia that emerges, being imbued with ‘nationalist ideas’ act in the
19
same direction. Thus capitalism, erupting into the tranquil life of the nationalities arouse them
and stir them into action. 98
The characterization of India was not an easy task. There were contradictory limitations –
political, emotional and ideological. A community of 500 millions, who suffered two hundred
years of colonial rule and had just been able to shake off the chain of colonial rule, to be called a
nation was a political necessity and the intelligentsia which set out to the task of this
characterization could not ignore this necessity. The trauma of partition brought in a emotional
dimension to the task of characterization. But ideologically, India with its numerous language
groups in different stages of development and an extremely unequal level of economic growth
could be fitted into the format of a nation
The 1960’s – 70’s presented another crucial juncture of the India as far as its nationality question
was concerned. Claims of differentiations, majority-minority, integrity, national language
question and separatist movement rocked the nation. It was time again for some serious
introspection. One of the prominent analysts entered the debate and felt that at the most India can
be designated as a ‘country’ but not a nation. 99 While accepting Stalin’s definition he felt that it
contained a crucial omission – the ‘will’ factor and the consciousness of the people. 100 The group
of people sharing common cultural attributes must be conscious of their historical growth and
also desire to be a separate entity as a Sovereign State. Such ‘popular sanction’ behind the
formation of a state make ‘nation’ a modern phenomenon mainly because it is the modern
instruments of communication and transport, the printing press, the roads and railways that have
enabled a real popular consciousness to be created. 101
Amalendu Guha invented new analytical tools study Indian situation. He felt that ‘nation’ and
‘nationality’ has to be distinguished as concepts. 102 A conjuncture of certain objective
conditions, such as a community of territory, language, economic life, mental make up etc.
manifested in a common culture is a necessary condition for the making of a nationality 103 and
such nationalities become a nation when they form their own nation-state at a mature stage of
their politico-economic development. 104 This nationality is state prior to that of nation-state and
the former has structural primary and historical precedence over the latter.
To Partha Chatterjee nation is a capitalist phenomenon which has its pre-capitalist forms
105
too. He felt that the characteristics attributed to be nation should actually belong to a
nationality. Language, literature, aesthetics and material culture together form the cultural
identity of a nationality which develops during the precapitalist times. The homogenization of
the cultural community having thus taken place, it culminates into a nation as a result of
economic imperatives under the initiatives of the concerned bourgeoisie. 106 The distinction
between nation and nationality is based on the relative stages of development of the mode of
production.
To Barun De the mere fact of imperial authority, territorial integrity or linguistic sameness
cannot be adequate conditions for the formation of a nationality. A community of common
memories and privileges in a territory bound by the thread of one or ore elements or a clearly
marked geographical boundary mark the nationality. 107 He asserted that nationhood cannot be
imposed. It may grow even in essentially hostile conditions.
20
 Javed Alam felt all Eurocentric definitions of nation needs to be reviewed it Indian nationality
situation is to be examined adequately. 108 The historical situation in European and Asian
continents were different. The colonial conditions prevailing in India and the transformation it
went through during two hundred years of colonial role made the spectrum different in India
context. For example there were no indigenous ‘oppressor nations’ in India nor the visualized
role of the bourgeoisie in leading a national movement is apt in Indian situation. 109
The task of defining nation and nationality as historical categories was followed by the arduous
task of characterizing India. Irfan Habib has been categorical in rejecting nationhood for India.
At the most it is country – not a nation, he contended. ‘It is a country which contains a number of
emerging nationalities with different languages and cultures of their own. 110 Echoing the same
understanding, Amalendu Guha also found India to be ‘a Union of nationalities’ – big and small
at various stages of development. ‘None of these however yet by itself form a nation …..’
‘India’s several nationalities together form the Indian nation-in-the making nationalities together
form the possibility of Indian nationalities emerging as nation themselves, Guha wrote that the
national aspirations of federal structure of the Indian polity. 111
Irfan Habib strongly criticized the emotional notion of some authors who tried to prove as
though India was a nation from time immemorial. 112 For example the exaggerated view of
Jawaharlal Nehru who depicted 17th century India to be ‘as advanced industrially, commercially
and financially as any country prior to the Industrial revolution. 113 In fact, nations and
nationalities are capitalist phenomena. Hence, the emergence of nationalities in India is a
phenomenon subsequent to British conquest and one that accompanied the rise of Indian
bourgeoisie for which British rule created the necessary preconditions. 114
E.M.S. Namboodiripad however does not agree that ‘there was no capitalism at all before the
British rule’ and that ‘it is a product of purely of British rule’. 115 Although he agreed that the
crystallization of ‘communities of culture’ in various regions of India in the Pre-British period
were perhaps ‘mistaken for a nationality or nation in the making’ but does not agree that there
were no integral connection between the ‘regionalized communities of culture of the pre-British
times and the entities which later deepened as nationalities of India. 116

India: A Civilization State

It is apparent that the debate over the characterization of India had reinforced
whenever there were active changes of Indian nationhood. The late 1970’s and the entire 1980’s
were one such crucial period when vociferous claim to separate nationhood and violent demands
for secessions were made. Once again there was a political necessity to present India as a unified
political and cultural reality and at the same time duly recognize the spectrum of instinctive
political and cultural regions. A leading historian of the country came up with and attempts to
synthesize the conflicting positions and put forward the idea that India should be understood as a
civilization state117 rather than as a nation-state – mono-national or multi-national. This
suggestion was politically vital because it showed awareness to the political difficulties that beset
the country when the state behaved as though it were a monolithic nation. 118 It also had a
21
pluralism char. 119 But it does not resolve the problem of the need for an identity in terms of
‘nation’.
The projection of India as a civilization however was not a new idea and it had
its origin in the Toynbean classification of India as a ‘civilization’. In fact one of the well-known
examples of similar attempt was that of Vincent Smith. 120 Smith found that India had a myriad
variety of races, regions, languages, manners and customs that formed innumerable political
subdivisions. Seldom was there a paramount power which succeeded in creating any political
unity among them. Even if it did, it was only for a limited period of time before they relapsed
into a Swarm of free, mutually repellent molecules in a state of incessant movements, flying
apart, again coalescing. This was the state of affair before the advent of the British who were
successful in bringing a sort of political unification. To present this bewildering scenarios as ‘the
history of one country, rather than histories of ephemeral regional principalities’, Smith thought
of the civilizational aspect an projected on the underlying unity amongst diversity. Despite the
diversity India s possessed, Smith depicted, ‘a deep underlying fundamental unity’ and it is
certain beliefs, practices and institutions, which are labelled as ‘Hindu’, worked as a unifier in
Indian civilization. India, he felt was primarily a Hindu country and the synthesized civilization
that it developed could be by the label Hinduism. Certain aspects of this civilization acted as a
powerful force in maintaining its integrity in the face of tremendous internal attacks. The
Smithian idea of unity in diversity though largely ignored by the ideologues hostile to Indian
nationalist aspirations caught the imagination of Indian nationalist who profitably used it in the
struggle against the British. Jawaharlal Nehru, for example, used it repeatedly:

“…….. India with all her poverty and greatness about her …. Behind and within the
battered body one could still glimpse majesty of soul. Through long ages she had
travelled and gathered much wisdom on the way and trafficked with strangers and added
this to her own big family ……….. But throughout her long journey she clung to her
immemorial culture, drain strength and vitality from it shared it other hands”. 121

Drawing a similarity between Italy and India representing the civilizations, he wrote,
“Both are ancient countries with long tradition of culture behind them …… Both are split
up politically and yet the conception of Italia like India never died and in all their
diversity, the unity was predominant. (…..It is curious now one cannot resist the tendency
to give anthropomorphic form to a country …… India becomes Bharatmata)”. 122

This has been essential idea Nehru was trying to put across in his ‘Discovery of India’. The same
point was later made even official during Nehru’s regime. The Historical division of the Ministry
of External Affairs in a note quoted excerpts from the Vishnu Purana and cited reference from
the Rigveda, the Mahabharata, Ramayana and other Sankrit texts to argue that the country south
of Himalayas and North of ocean is called Bharat and all born in it are called Bharatiyas. It
pointed to the cultural and political unity of India encircling from northern mountains to the
southern ocean. 123 Over the boundary dispute with China, and mentioned in an earlier section,
22
Nehru did not agree with Chon-En-Lai that India’s boundary was an Imperialist creation and
argued that the frontier of India was settled by its history, geography and tradition centuries
before the British came in. 124
Entering the debate an American Scholar showed that right through the ages the regions as
well as an overbearing Indian civilization has been the reality of his history. The process was
characterized by dominance of the all-India ideology, worked by it historical experience, which
prevented the regions to become nations. But the American does not agree that it was Hinduism,
but an element of Hinduism – the Brahmanic ideology – that performed the unifying note. 125 The
beliefs, practices and institutional structure that Smith described as Hindu actually belonged to
the Brahmanic tradition. As such a distinction should be made between the Brahmanic practices
and Hindu traditions because Hinduism as many regional and local manifestations varying partly
in time and space while Brahmanism revolves around the much coherent and consistent
intellectual statements of the great classical texts which has been variously interpreted and
elaborated but the core world-view remains astonishingly unchanged. While asserting the
significance of the Brahmanic tradition for Indian civilization it is also possible to reorganize the
large segments of the population who had been unfamiliar with it I its articulated from. In fact
the nature of the unity of India has been precisely that. While present throughout most of the
Sub-continent, many of the most important element of this civilization were confined to some
areas, at least in their articulated from, to a relatively small number of population. It has been the
‘linkage’ – linkage of religious and political ideas, literary, culture and political and political
theories, practices and historical memories, even though stratified, are the unifying factors. It
absorbed the historical experience of the impact of Islamic and Western civilizations which it
went through. In fact, the ideological linkage was the matrix which made possible the particular
role of Islamic and Western intrusions as unifying factors. These linkages therefore were
supplementary but important feature of Indian civilization and provided the basis of the modern
Indian political society. 126
Looking for a cultural context of Nationalism and communalism in India , Rajni Kothari also
joined the debate and stressed that,
“We need to remember that the essential identity of India is cultural, not political or
economic. It is one civilization that has withstood various vicissitudes and still endured
largely because of its basic identity being recently. It never has a political centre except
very recently ….. India’s fundamental interpretative ethos and its self-identity have been
drawn from a social reality that is composed of great diversity and plurality, running
across which there were certain major cultural streams, and cultural elite that shaped and
interpreted these streams. In the old days, we used to call it Brahmanic elite. It is
therefore important to remember that until recently, upto the growth of national
movement and the founding of Indian republic what held us together was the basic
identity of being a civilization tied together by a set of values by a set of cultural norms
and by an interpreting elite, first within the broad stream of Hinduism which itself had an
extremely plural framework and them through a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and
ultimately multi-national society which we are now”. 127
23
One more point was raised by a senior historian challenging the imperialist notions. He wrote
that their attitude was imbued with a basic lack if empathy with the people studied. Even if
empathy did exist it was more or less smothered by the demand of Imperialism. The striking
feature of Indian polity was that despite the diversity, the people of India lived and felt as ‘one
people’ which them a nation.” 128
Challenges and Responses
The dominant current of these perspectives was the one which characterizes India as a multi-
national state and concludes that India’s federal structure was the apt answer to he baffling
national questions. But these theories did not go unopposed and unchallenged. These challenges
and opposition came in the form a new set of theories regarding Indian national identity. The
first challenge came from Achin Vanaik 129 who said that the characterization of India as multi-
national state is false and also India is no more a nation in the making. He asserted that India is
already a nation state and the problem of Indian national question stands resolved. It was from
15th August 1947 that India became a nation-state although politically and culturally a nation-in-
the making seeking a culture-emotional Pan-India identity. The Indian nation is to make full use
of the climate and foster this current of national integration and nation-building. 130A self
contradictory theory indeed. After making a claim that India is not a multi-national state, the
author makes a distinction between nation and nation-state (not between nation and nationalities
or ethnic groups) and declares that India have already emerged as a nation-state with
independence. It is not multi-national because no social groups are really trying to secede from
India. Movements of the Gorkhas or Bodos are mere sub-national movements seeking
concession from the nation-state. 131 The movements in North East like that of the Nagas are
‘regional movements’ but the central government of India has been trying to convert it into a
sub-national movement by its ‘carrot and stick’ policy. Of course, the other regionalist
movement, that of Khalistan has dangerous potential, the author agreed. 132 Kashmir was not
discussed. One would agree with author that national identity is political and cultural at the same
time and also a complex combination of the two, but negating the pluralist character of India and
calling Naga Movement as a regional movements are superficial and contrary to the reality.
Javed Alam challenge133 in this regard was more valid. He criticized the orthodox Stalinist
position regarding the role of bourgeoisie in national movements arguing that in India context
there were no indigenous oppressor nation and the national bourgeoisie was in fact had a Pan-
Indian character because by championing regional local language or culture it could threaten its
own interests in the areas where the language/culture was different. The colonial situation and
the absence of a pre-capitalist mode of production in India on the eve of British conquest has to
be taken into consideration when a debate on the issue is unleashed. 134
The other serous but largely ignored challenge135 questioned the established schools of
historiography which propagated that partition was as result of the intransigence of the Muslims
and the machinations of the British policy of divide and rule, rather than the refusal of the Hindu
collaborator bourgeoisie to share the booty of the bourgeois development with the new Muslim
bourgeoisie. 136 Accepting, implicitly, the multi-national character of India the author insisted that
military suppression of nationalities and their forced integration formed the basis of the Indian
24
state. The suppression of nationalities by the state (whose policies were based on upper caste
Hindi-Hindu ethos and the suppression of the non-Hindu nationalities, non upper castes and non-
Hindus) was carried out at four levels. 137 First, by centralization of power in Delhi and the
suppression of non-Hindi nationalities by blocking their economic political and cultural
linguistic advancements and by discouraging the development of the regional bourgeoisie.
Second, by crushing the nationality separations of groups like the Jharkandis, Gorkhas and so on.
These groups are not even recognized as having any nationality rights. Third, by denying the
right of self-determination and secession to the border nationalities like the Nagas, Mizos and
Kashmiris. Fourth, by undermining the sovereignty of the small, neighboring states, eg. Srilanka,
Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim.
A section of political scientists deliberately ignored the issue as though non-characterizing the
country would solve the problem. It is accepted as the path of the wise. But would selective
evasion see the crisis through that the country is facing especially when nationality question is
one of the crucial questions in Indian polity today? In other words, is characterizing the country
so essential?
It has to be asserted that characterization is not a mere ‘labelisation’. It is providing the country
with an identity – it is a description of the people concerned. The description should be such that
it takes into consideration every single community, group and people and their emotional
leanings. For example, by ignoring the multiplicity of Indian people in the characterization of the
nation one could hurt the sentiment of the people, derecognize their nationality or ethnic entity,
suppress their nationality/ethnic rights and aspirations, because it amounts to negating the very
existence of some group of people who are alive and entity by themselves. Characterization,
hence, is recognition of the people who form the very basis of the entity. Therefore, such an
exercise is a primary though arduous task, especially in dealing with an entity like India, before
attempting any analysis of the nationality questions of the concerned political society. Such task
is not merely an exercise in theory but participation in the political processes.

Resurgence of Ethnicity:

Ethnicity as a concept and analytical tool was originally confined to American Social Scientist.
It is now accepted in Marxist circles 138 and its own limitations. Similarly from ‘Multi-national’
India is now being described as ‘multi-nationality’, multi-ethnic union. 139 Following Mikhail
Gorbachev who labeled the Russia of Perestroika and Glasnost as ‘multi-ethnic, 140 Rajib Gandhi,
one of the Ex-Prime Ministers of India also declared India as a ‘multi-ethnic’, ‘multi-cultural’
country. 141
Though with the turn of events and perspectives at the centre of official Marxism (USSR and
other European countries) the Indian Marxist are yet to pronounce their position, the position of
the earlier Marxist were clear. To them India was a multi-national state, similar to that of USSR
and a similar solution in India will solve the problems of nationality. 142 For examples, at the
initial stage of a popular democratic Revolution, India could be made into a ‘Union of Republics’
in which each national republic i.e., state unit would have the right to secede or unite with
25
neighboring nations/republics. There would be no coordinating centre to oversee the voluntary
unity of these republics. To them the problem of the nationalities in India was part of the
question of completion of the democratic revolution, to be followed by the subsequent transition
to socialism, its solution is inseparably connected with the replacement of the class rule of the
bourgeoisie and landlords by a new Peoples Democratic State and government in which the
working class plays the dominant role. 143 To conclude, most of the problems and crises faced by
the India polity are directly or indirectly connected with the national questions, and as such has
become one of the crucial questions in India polity today. It has also emerged as an area of
serious intellectual deliberations which in essence is not a mere exercise in academics but a
political practice with practical implications.

Notes and References

26
1
Romilla Thapar, A History of India, Volume 1, Penguin, New Delhi,
2
Romilla Thapar, A History of India, Volume 1, Penguin, New Delhi,
3
O P Kejariwal, The Asiatic Society of Bengal and the Discovery of India’s Past, OUP, Delhi, 1988, p9.’
4
Perhaps nothing shows this better than a description of a book published in 1494, the sale of which almost five centuries
later was mentioned in the journal, Bengal Past and Present. In its issue of 1930 January-June), the Editor's note book
carried the following item: “Two sales of Indian interest took place in London during the month of December last. On
December 17 a copy was sold at Sotheby's of Giuliano Dati's exceedingly rare pamphlet on India II Secondo cantare Dell'
India', which was printed in Rome in 1494. The woodcuts exhibit an extraordinary conception of the inhabitants and fauna
of India: there are one-eyed, dog-headed, and headless men, pygmies, men and women with large feet used as parasol, a
winged snake, a flying panther and other strange beasts, birds and insects." Cited in O P Kejariwal, The Asiatic Society of
Bengal and the Discovery of India’s Past, OUP, Delhi, 1988, p9.

5
O P Kejariwal, The Asiatic Society of Bengal and the Discovery of India’s Past, OUP, Delhi, 1988, p9.

6
O P Kejariwal, The Asiatic Society of Bengal and the Discovery of India’s Past, OUP, Delhi, 1988, p9.

7
William Darlymple, The White Mughals.; Love and Betrayals in Eighteenth century India, Penguin, Delhi,, 2002

8
Amit Kumar Sharma Elements of Indian Civilization: A Sociological Perspective, Indian Anthropologist, Vol. 33, No. 1
(June 2003), pp. 71-92

9
Warren Hastings, Preface to Charles Wilkin’s translation of Gita, in O P Kejariwal The Asiatic Society of Bengal and the
Discovery of India’s Past, OUP, Delhi, 1988, p. 21..

10
G N Curzon, True Imperialism, Birmingham, 1907, p. 18
11
Percival Spear, History of India, vol. 2, Penguin, 1968, p. 12
12
Percival Spear, History of India, vol. 2, Penguin, 1968, p. 12
13
Bipan Chandra, Rise and Growth of Economic Nationalism in India: Economic Policies of Indian National Leadership,
1880-1905. Peoples Publishing House, New Delhi, 1966.
.
14
Bipan Chandra, Rise and Growth of Economic Nationalism in India: Economic Policies of Indian National Leadership,
1880-1905. Peoples Publishing House, New Delhi, 1966.
15
Bipan Chandra, Rise and Growth of Economic Nationalism in India: Economic Policies of Indian National Leadership,
1880-1905. Peoples Publishing House, New Delhi, 1966
16
Ananda Mohan Bose in the report of the Indian Association (1883) cited in Bipan Chandra, ‘Nationalist Interpretation of
Indian National Movement,’ in Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Romila Thapar (eds) Situating Indian History, OUP, 1986,
pp.194-238.

17
W. C. Banerjee, Presidential Address to Indian National Congress (INC), 1885 reproduced in A.
Moin Zaidi andShaheda Zaidi,Encyclopaedia of Indian National Congress, Vol.1 1885-1890, S. Chand and Co, New Delhi,
1976, pp. 44-46
18
Welcome Address by Rajendralal Mitra to the Indian National Congress, Session 1886 reproduced in A.
Moin Zaidi andShaheda Zaidi,Enclyclopaedia of Indian National Congress, Vol.1 1885-1890, S. Chand and Co, New Delhi,
1976.Pp.114-122
19
Welcome Address by Rajendralal Mitra to the Indian National Congress, Session 1886 reproduced in A.
Moin Zaidi andShaheda Zaidi,Enclyclopaedia of Indian National Congress, Vol.1 1885-1890, S. Chand and Co, New Delhi,
1976.Pp.114-122
20
Badruddin Tyabji, Presidential Address, INC Madras, December 1887, reproduced in A.
Moin Zaidi andShaheda Zaidi,Encyclopaedia of Indian National Congress, Vol.1 1885-1890, S. Chand and Co, New Delhi,
1976.Pp.216-224
21
Pheroze Shah Mehta, Presidential Address, INC, Calcutta, 1890. Reproduced in A.
Moin Zaidi andShaheda Zaidi,Encyclopaedia of Indian National Congress,Vol.1 1885-1890, S. Chand and Co, New Delhi,
1976, Pp.564-583
22
31. Pheroze Shah Mehta, Presidential Address, INC, Calcutta, 1890. Reproduced in A.
Moin Zaidi andShaheda Zaidi,Encyclopaedia of Indian National Congress, Vol.1 1885-1890, S. Chand and Co, New Delhi,
1976; Pp.564-583; also Ajudhia Nath, Welcome Address, Allahabad, 1888, Reproduced in A.
Moin Zaidi andShaheda Zaidi,Encyclopaedia of Indian National Congress, Vol.2: 1891-1895, S. Chand and Co, New Delhi,
1976.Pp.285-292

23
Pheroze Shah Mehta, Presidential Address, INC, Calcutta, 1890 in A. Moin Zaidi andShaheda Zaidi,Encyclopaedia of
Indian National Congress, Vol.1 1885-1890, S. Chand and Co, New Delhi, 1976.Pp.564-583

24
Ramesh Chandra Mitter, Welcome Address INC, Nagpur, 1891reproduced in A.
Moin Zaidi andShaheda Zaidi,Encyclopaedia of Indian National Congress, Vol.1 1885-1890, S. Chand and Co, New Delhi,
1976.pp46-55
25
Ibid.

26
P Ananda Charlu, Presidential Address, INC, Nagpur, 1891 reproducedin A. Moin Zaidi andShaheda Zaidi,Encyclopaedia
of Indian National Congress, Vol.2 1891-1895, S. Chand and Co, New Delhi, 1976. Pp.52-65

27
Cited in Bipan Chandra, ‘Nationalist Interpretation of Indian National Movement,’ in Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and
Romila Thapar (eds) Situating Indian History, OUP, 1986, pp.194-238; Also Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Welcome Address
INC, Nagpur, 1891, reproducedin A. Moin Zaidi andShaheda Zaidi,Encyclopaedia of Indian National Congress, Vol.2
1891-1895, S. Chand and Co, New Delhi, 1976.pp.597-604
.

28
Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Welcome Address INC, Nagpur, 1891, reproduced in A.
Moin Zaidi andShaheda Zaidi,Encyclopaedia of Indian National Congress, Vol.2 1891-1895, S. Chand and Co, New Delhi,
1976.pp.597-604
.

29
Surendra Nath Banerjee, A Nation in the Making: Being the Reminiscences of fifty yeasrs of public Life, Bombay, 1925,
reprint, Rupa New Delhi, 2016; Also his Presidential Address INC, Poona, 1895, reproduced inA.
Moin Zaidi andShaheda Zaidi,Encyclopaedia of Indian National Congress, Vol.2 1891-1895, S. Chand and Co, New Delhi,
1976.pp.605
30
Pheroze Shah Mehta, Welcome Address, INC, Bombay, 1889 reproduced in A.
Moin Zaidi andShaheda Zaidi,Encyclopaedia of Indian National Congress, Vol.1, 1885-1890, S. Chand and Co, New Delhi,
1976.Pp.564-583
31
Lala Lajpat Rai, Speeches and Writings, Vol I, Cited in Bipan Chandra ‘Nationalist Interpretation of Indian National
Movement,’ in Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Romila Thapar (eds) Situating Indian History, OUP, 1986, pp.194-238.
32
Sri Aurobindo, Bandemataram: Early Political Writings- 1, Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry, 1972,p. 652, quoted in B N
Mukherjee, Nationhood and Statehood in India: A Historical Survey,Regency, New Delhi, 2001, p. 25.
33
Ambika Charan Majumdar, Presidential Address, INC, Lucknow, 1916 reproduced in A. Moin Zaidi andShaheda Zaidi et
al, ,Encyclopaedia of Indian National Congress, Compiled under the auspices of Indian Institutue of Applied Political
Research, Vol. Seven : 1916-1920 Emergence of Gandhi, S. Chand and Co, New Delhi, 1977.Pp. 56-64

34
Ambika Charan Majumdar, Presidential Address, INC, Lucknow, 1916 reproduced in A. Moin Zaidi andShaheda Zaidi et
al, Encyclopaedia of Indian National Congress, Compiled under the auspices of Indian Institutue of Applied Political
Research, Vol. Seven : 1916-1920 Emergence of Gandhi, S. Chand and Co, New Delhi, 1977. Pp. 56-64

35
Bipan Chandra, Rise and Growth of Economic Nationalism in India: Economic Policies of Indian National Leadership,
1880-1905, Peoples Publishing House, New Delhi, 1966, pp. 736-760.
36
Dadabhai Naoroji, cited in Bipan Chandra, Rise and Growth of Economic Nationalism in India:Economic Policies of
Indian National Leadership, 1880-1905, Peoples Publishing House, New Delhi, 1966, p.697.
37
M. K.Gandhi to Viceroy, March 2, 1930, Letter No. 62, M. K. Gandhi, Collected Works Vol, 43, p. 34 cited in Bipan
Chandra, Rise and Growth of Economic Nationalism in India:Economic Policies of Indian National Leadership, 1880-1905,
Peoples Publishing House, New Delhi, 1966, p. 750.

38
C Shankaran Nair, Presidential Address, INC, Amravati, 1897 reproduced in A.
Moin Zaidi andShaheda Zaidi,Encyclopaedia of Indian National Congress, Vol.3 1896-1900, S. Chand and Co, New Delhi,
1976.pp. 205-223

39
Sudhir Chandra, The Oppressive Present: Literature and Social Consciousness, OUP, Delhi, 1992, pp.10-11.
40
Jawaharlal Nehru, Discovery of India, (London, 1956), P. 287.
41
K.M. Panikkar, Indian Nationalism : Its origin, History and Ideals, (London, 1920), pp. 11-12.
Radha Kumud Mukerjee, Nationalism in Hindu Culture, (London, 1921), PP. 96-104.
______________________, The Fundamental Unity of India, (London, 1914).
Bipin Chandra Pal, The Soul of India : A Constructive study of Indian Thought and Ideals, (Calcutta, 1911).
____________________________, Nationality and Empire (Calcutta, 1916) P. 81.
R.G. Pradhan, India’s struggle for Swaraj (Madras, 1929), PP. 2-3.
Annie Besant, How India Wrought her Freedom The study of the National, Congress told from Official Records
(Adyar, 1915).
42
S.N. Banerjee, A Nation in the making, (Bombay, 1925).
W.C. Banerjee, Indian Politics, (Madras, 1898).
M.A. Buch, Rise and Growth of Indian Liberalism, (Baroda, 1988).
A.C. Majumder, Indian National Evolution, (Madras, 1917).
R. N. Tagore, Nationalism, (New York, 1917).
R.P. Kakaria, India, Forty Years of Progress and Reform, (London, 1904).
43
Ibid.
44
R.C. Dutt, Economic History of India in the Victorian Age, (London, 1904).
Dadabhai Naoraji, Poverty and Un-British Rule In India, (London, 1901).
Rajni Palme dutt, India Today, (London, 1947).
A. R. Desai, Social Background of Indian Nationalism, (Bombay, 194).
45
Jawaharlal Nehru, Discovery of India, (OUP, 1946, 1989 reprint), P. 61.
46
Ibid., P. 562.
47
Ibid., P. 531.
48
Rajni Palme Dutt Op. Cit., P. 283.
49
Vincent Smith, op. Cit.
50
Rajni Palme Dutt Op. Cit., P. 283.
51
Rajni Palme Dutt, op. Cit. P. 299.
52
Ibid., P. 473.
53
A. R. Desai, op. Cit., pp. 381-90.
54
E.T. Daltion, Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal (London, 1872). Hebert Risley, Population of India Statistical Account
of Bengal. (London, 1876). W.W. Hunter, for example, wrote in The Annals of Rural Bengal (London, 1888) “The mass
of people consisted of two races which in intellect, languages and in everything that makes a nation great or ignoble,
have been selected to represent highest and lowest type of mankind…… The composite people evolved from two stocks,
belonging to very unequal degrees of civilization, which brought closely and permanently into contact, presents one of
the most interesting questions with which history has to deal. How the Aryan and Aboriginal solved this problem. The
term on which they have to a certain extent united, and the ethnical compromises to which they have had to submit, form
the subject of this chapter (P. 53). But a few pages later he says “we are too much accustomed to speak of India as a
single country, and of its inhabitants as a single nation; but the truth is that as regards its history, its extent and its
palpation, India displays the diversities rather of a continent that of a single state” (P. 57).
55
John Strachey, India its administration and Progress (London, 1888) P. Stratchey also assured his audience that not
even in the future there I possibility of the growth of a single Indian nationality despite the unifying effect that the
British rule produced. However long may be the “duration of our dominion however powerful may be the centralizing
attraction of our government or the influence of the common interests which grow up no such issue (a unified national
feeling) can follow.” Strachey continued that it is an impossibility that the “Man of Bombay, Punjab, Bengal and Madras
should even feel that they belong to one great nation”- Ibid p. 8. Vincent Smith, Oxford History of India, (London,
1919).
56
John Seeley, Expansion of England (London, 1883) p. 254.
57
Ibid, p
58
John Stratchey, Op. Cit. P. 505
59
Ibid.
60
Sir John Seeley, Expansion of England 1883-1895, Macmillan, London 1883, p.254.
61
Sir John Seeley, Expansion of England 1883-1895, Macmillan, London 1883, p.254.

62
Sir, John Strachey, India: Its Administration and Progress 1823-1907, London, Macmillan, 1911, p.5.
63
Sir, John Strachey, India: Its Administration and Progress 1823-1907, London, Macmillan, 1911, p.5.

64
Cited in Tara Chand, History of Freedom Movement, Vol. 3, Publications Division, Information and Broadcasting
Ministry, Government of India, New Delhi 1972, p. 12.
65
Government of India, Indian Statutory Commission,Vol.II, Central Publication Division, Calcutta, 1930, p 12.
66
H W Nevison, review of Government of India, Indian Statutory Commission,Vol.II, Central Publication Division,
Calcutta, 1930 in New Leader, June 1930 cited in Rajni Palme Dutt, India Today, London, 1940 Rep, Manisha,
Calcutta, p.286.
67
Valentine Chirol, Indian Unrest, (a reprint, revised and enlarged from ‘The Times,’ with an introduction by Alfred
Lyall), Macmillan, London, 1910; Alfred Lyall, Rise and Expansion of British Dominion in India, J.
Murray,London,1898; William Wilson Hunter, A Brief History of The Indian Peoples, Clarendon press, 1897, Oxford;
J. Ramsay McDonald, Awakening in India, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1910.

68
Cited in Sajal Nag, Nationalism, Separatism and Secessionism, Rawat, Delhi and Jaipur, 1999, p. 52
69
Ibid.
70
Sir John Strachey, India: Its Administration and Progress 1823-1907, London, Macmillan, 1911, p.5.

71
Government of India, Indian Statutory Commission, vol.II, Central Publication Division, Calcutta, 1930, p 12.

72
Government of India, Indian Statutory Commission, vol.II, Central Publication Division, Calcutta, 1930, p 12.

73
Lord Meston, Nationhood for India, New Haven, Yale University Press; 1931; B T McCully, Review of Meston’s book in
Journal of Modern History, Vol 4, 1934, p.646; Sir Verney Lovett, A History of Indian Nationalist Movement, Frederick A
Stokes Publishing Co, London, 1920; Sir Valentine Chirol, India: Old and New, Macmillan, London 1921.

74
Valentine Chirol, Indian Unrest, (a reprint, revised and enlarged from ‘The Times,’ with an introduction by Alfred Lyall),
Macmillan, London, 1910, pp.38-39.
75
R. Srivatsan, ‘Native Noses and Nationalist Zoos: Debates in Colonial and Early Nationalist Anthropology of Castes and
Tribes,’ Economic and Political Weekly, May 7-13, 2005, Vol. 40, No. 19, pp. 1986-1998.
76
Lord Meston, Nationhood for India, New Haven, Yale University Press; 1931, p.25.
77
J. Ellam, Swaraj: The Problem of India, Hutchinson, London, 1930, reprint, Logos Press, New Delhi, 1984, p. 26 and 166-
167.
78
Bruce T. McCully, English Education and the Origin of Indian Nationalism, Columbia University Press, New York,
1940.
79
W. Moreland, India at the Death of Akbar: An Economic Study, Macmillan, London, 1920; W. Moreland, From Akbar to
Aurangzeb: A Study in Economic History, Macmillan. London, 1923; Vera Anstey, Economic Development of India,
Longman, London, 3rd Edition, 1949.
80
Reginald Craddock, The Dilemma in India, Constable & Co. London, 1929; J. E. Woolacot, British Rule in India,
Macmillan, London, 1926; J. E. Ellam, Swaraj: The Problem of India, Hutchinson, London, 1930.
81
R. J. Moore, Churchill, Cripps and India, OUP, New York, 1979, p. vii.

82
Reginald Coupland, India: A Restatement, OUP,London, 1945; B. T. McCully, English Education and the Origin of
Indian Nationalism, Columbia University Press, New York, 1940; S. Bret Reed, A History of the British Empire, Thomas
Nelson, London, 1941.
83
Reginald Coupland, India: A Restatement, OUP,London, 1945; B. T. McCully, English Education and the Origin of
Indian Nationalism, Columbia University Press, New York, 1940; S. Bret Reed, A History of the British Empire, Thomas
Nelson, London, 1941.

84
Arthur Marwick, Nature of History, Macmilan, London, 1970, reprint 1989, pp 52-58.
85
Arthur Marwick, Nature of History, Macmilan, London, 1970, reprint 1989, pp 52-58.

86
J. Ellam, Swaraj: The Problem of India, Hutchinson, London, 1930, reprint, Logos Press, New Delhi, 1984, p. 200.

87
The slogan raised by the communists.
88
S. Gopal. Jawaharlal Nehru : A Biography, Vol. 2, (OUP), P. 13.
89
Sardar Patel in a special convocation of Banaras Hindu University, 1948, cited in Rau’s Study Circle, National
Movement in India, (New Delhi, 1982), P. 141.
90
Nehru, Speeches at Allahabad, 14 Dec., National Herald, 1947, cited in S. Gopal, Op.cit., P. 14-15.
91
Nehru’s statement, Times of India, 16 September 1947, cited in S. Gopal, op.Cit., P. 18
92
Notes, Memoranda and letters exchanged between the Government of India and China, Sept-November 1959,
Ministry of Cultural Affairs (New Delhi, 1959) cited in Aislee, T. embree, India Civilization and Religion Cultures;
The Two Realities in Paul Wallace (ed.), Region and Nation in India (Oxford and IBH, 1985), pp. 19-59.
93
Ibid.
94
See My “Principle of Linguistic Provinces : Tackling Nationality Question in India” NEHU Journal of Social
Sciences and Humanities, October, December, 1991.
95
J.V. Stalin, ‘Marxism and National Question’ in Selections from V.I. Lenin and J.V. Stalin on National Colonial
Question (Calcutta, 1970), PP. 67-70.

There are reservations expressed regarding Stalin’s definition. But the alternatives available are not substantially
different from Stalinist formulation as can be seen.

“…….. Citizen Self-government, a territorial home and a distinctive ethnic history are three fundamental goals of
nationalist movement in every continent and the national they aspire to create through their movement is founded upon
these three pillars, even where it seeks to import other element such as language, will or religion.”

A.D. Smith (ed.), Nationalist Movements (Mc Milan, 1979), P. 1-3.

Also A. D. Smith “Nationalism, A Trend Report and Bibliography’ Current Sociology’ Vol. XXXI, No. 3, 1973,
Section – Two.

Ronaldo Munck defined nationality as an ethnic Group, a Socio-cultural unit or community which is also defined
historically and by its action in the political field. Where as Nation is understood as the type of political society
established by a nationality.A Nation-state is the Symbiosis established between a nation and a given state in the era of
the bourgeois reveolution and Nationalism is the political movement whereby a given nationality strives to accomplish
its nation-hood or free itself from domination by another.

Ronaldo, Munch, The Difficult, dialogues: Marxism and Nationalism (OUP, 1986) PP. 7-8.

Hans Kohn described Nationalism as ‘a state of mind’ which grows out from ‘some of the oldest and most primitive
feelings of man’ namely, a love for his birth-place, a preference for his own languages’ customs and religion or race.
Whilst these ‘objective or ‘neutral’ characteristics shape man’s collective or social consciousness. These objective
factors become elements out of which nationalism arise and flourish.

See Hans Kohn, The Idea of Nationalism (New York, 1944).

Also his Nationalism : Its Meaning and History (Princeton, 1955) Part – I.
96
J.V. Stalin, Op.cit.
97
Ibid, PP. 73-74.
98
Ibid.
99
Ibid.
100
Irfan Habib, ‘Emergence of Nationalities in India’ (revised version) in TDSS, Nationality Questions in India,
(Pune, 1987) PP. 17-25.
101
Ibid.
102
Ibid.
103
Amalendu Guha, Nationalism : Pan Indian and Regional in Historical Perspective, Presidential Address, Indian
History Congress 44th (BURDWAN) Section, PP. 1-19.
Also his ‘The Indian National Question: A Conceptual Frame’ in Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 17, Spl. No. 31
July, 1982, PP. 2-12.
104
Ibid.
105
Ibid..
106
Partha Chatterjee, ‘Bengal Rise and Growth of a Nationality, in Social Scientist, Vol. 4, No. 1, August 1975, PP.
67-82.
107
Ibid.
108
Barun De. ‘Complexities in the Relationship between Nationalism, Capitalism and Colonialism’ in D.
Chattopadhaya (ed.) History and Society, (Calcutta, 1977), PP. 495-512.
109
Javeed Alam, ‘Dialectics of Capitalist Transformation and National Crystallization the past and present of National
Question in India’ in Economic and Political Weekly, January 29, 1983, PP. 29-46.
Bipan Chandra felt that the idea of Indian national movement originating with the bourgeoisie is wrong. At no stage
did the bourgeoisie provide the main thrust of the movement. See his ‘ Indian Capitalist Class and Imperialism before
1947’ In Bipan Chandra, Nationalism and Colonialism in Modern India (Orient Longman, 1979) P. 169, Note 1.
110
Ibid..
111
Irfan Habib, op.cit.
112
Amalendu Guha, op. cit.
113
Irfan Habib asserted that nation and nationalism is product of capitalist transformation and hence could not have
emerged before the dawn of capitalism.
Irfan Habib, op.cit. Also his Interpreting India History, (Shillong, 1986), PP. 43-44.
114
Jawaharlal Nehru, The discovery of India (London, 1956, reprint), P. 282.
115
Irfan Habib, Emergence of Nationalities etc. op.cit.
116
EMS Namboodiripad, ‘The Indian National Question : Need for Deeper Study’, Social Scientist, Vol. 12, No. 12,
December, 1982, PP. 61-69.
117
Ibid.
118
Ravinder Kumar, ‘Th Ideological and Structural Unity of Indian Civilization’, Occasional Paper NMML, 1982 :
Also presented as a paper in a seminar on ‘National Unity’ at India International Centre, Delhi, 19 December, 1982.
119
Ashish Banerjee ‘The Ideology and Politics of Indi’s National Identity in Zoya Hassan etc. al. (ed) The State
Political Processes and Identity, (Sage, New Delhi, 1989), PP. 283-96.
120
Ibid.
121
Vincent Smith, Oxford History of India, (Oxford, 1923), PP. VIII-IX.
122
J. Nehru, Autobiography (London, 1936, 1955), PP. 429-31.
123
Ibid.
124
See note 28.
125
Ibid.
126
Ainslee T. Embree, op.cit.
127
Ibid.
128
Ibid.
129
Achin Vanaik, ‘Is there a Nationality Question in India’, Economic and Political weekly, Vol 23, No. 44, October
29, 1988, pp. 2278-2288. This is understandable as the basic objective of Vanaik was to show ‘India in transition: both
externally and internally… The fundamental proposition held is that India is in the process of becoming an even more
dominant power in South Asia and will derive from this growing regional hegemony, greater global prestige and
status. A Vanaik, The painful Transition: Bourgeois Democracy in India, Verso, 1990, P. 1 wherein the above article
includes as a chapter.
130
Ibid.
131
Ibid.
132
Ibid.
133
Javeed Alam, op.cit, Irfan Habib accepted the issues raised by Javed Alam as valid in the revised version of his
earlier article. Irfan Habib, ‘Emergence of Nationalities’, op.cit.
134
Ibid.
135
Sajal Nag, Roots of Ethnic Conflict: Nationality Questions in North East India, (New Delhi, 1990), P. – XI.
136
Ibid.
137
Ibid.
138
Eg. Samir Amin, Unequal Development : An essay on Social formations of Peripheral capitalism, (OVP, 1976),
PP. 27-30.
139
Sajal Nag, op.cit, Vanaik, op.cit, called it multilingual, multi-cultural state.
140
The Telegraph, 08-03, 1988. Also, Address by Mikhail Gorbachev to the Congress of peoples, Deputies, May 30,
1989, Soviet Review Documents, (Allied Publications, New Delhi, 1989), PP. 33-36.
141
The. Telegraph, 08-03, 1988. Also, Address by Mikhail Gorbachev to the Congress of peoples, Deputies, May 30,
1989, Soviet Review Documents, (Allied Publications, New Delhi, 1989), PP. 33-36.
142
R. Krishnamurthy, ‘Indian Democratic Revolution: National Question in RSU, Nationality Question in India,
(Hyderabad, 1982), P. 163.
143
Ibid.