UNIT 1 NATIONAND NATIONALISM"

Structure
1.1 Introduetion
1.2 Understanding Nation, NationalisIn and Nation-State
121 Thc Qucstion of Nationalism
1.2.2 Defining Nation and Nation-State
1.3 Challenges for a Theory of Nationalism
14 Thecorics of Nationalism
141 Non-Modernist Thcorics
1.4.2 Modernist Theories
1.5 Indian Nationalism
1.6 Summary
1.7 Exercises

1.1 INTRODUCTION
This is the first Unit of the course. It attempts to familiarise you with the concept
of nationalism and how it has been understood by historians and other social
scientists.

Indian Nationalist Movement, as you are aware, was a grand and prolonged
struggle launched against British imperialism. Nationalism was the main ideology
and the instrument with whose help this struggle was launched. In the context of
the Indian Nationalist Movement, Indian nationalism represented two major ideas:
anti-imperialism and national unity. In other words, any person, movement or
organisation that practised and upheld these two ideas, could be considered a
nationalist.

But nationalism. it is important to remember, was not confined only to india. It

was not even confined to the countries ofAsia and Africa that came under forcign
domination and struggled to get rid of it. Nationalism was truly a global
phenomenonthat emerged in most countries of the world and made its presence
felt. It has been argued that nationalism has been the most powerful political
forcc in thc modern world. It has manifcstecd itsclfas politics, idcology, movement,
bclicf system,a sentimcnt and also a passion. Large numbcrs of storics, pocms,
novels and literature have been written on the theme of nationalisnm.Nationalism
would thus appcar to be acomplcx phenomenon that has cmerged in very differcnt
and contrasting conditions. Both the devclopcd industrial socictics of Europe
and the undeveloped societies of Asia and Africa, came under the spell of
nationalism. Socictics that had very little in common were pervaded by the
phenomenon of nationalismroughly at around the same time (1gth-20 century).
It would thus appear that there must be ageneral., universal explanation for its
cmergence, apart from specific explanations applicable only to the context. In
other words we arc talking about a theory of nationalism. This thcory (or theories)
should account for nationalism in general. This Unit willexplain to you some of
the gencral theorics of nationalism.
* Resource Person: Prof. Salil Misra
Introduction
1.2 UNDERSTANDING NATION, NATIONALISM
AND NATION-STATE

and
This Unit will focus on threc things: I) some of the major debates
theories of nationalism that
controversics rclatecd to nationalism: 2) the various
have been offered by the social scientists: and 3) the relevance these theories
hold for India as a casc-study.

What really is the qucstion of nationalism? And why is it important?

1.2.! The Question of Nationalismn
When we speak ofnationalism, we speak of a period between cighteenth and
local
twentieth century. It was during this period that a large number of small,
communities began to be transformed into (a relativcly smaller number of) large
and homogenous communities. To put it simply, a large number of small
communities began to be transtormed into a smallnumber of large communities.
The largeness of numbers was replaced by the largeness of size. The new
communities were marked by new ties and solidarities. New solidarities began
to develop that were somewhat impersonal in nature and yet very powerfu!.
Groups and individuals, not familiar with one another, began to look upon
themselves as members of this newly created large invisible community called
the Nation.|What was involved in this process was a new type of imagination.
New communities were getting created above allthrough an "imagination". The
new communities were not constituted by reciprocity, common shar1ng of
resources, or familiarity. Most communities in history (village communitics,
speech communities or other local groups) had been based on familiarity. The
new national communities, on the contrary, were based on unfamiliarity and
anonymity. The new communities were brought together, not so much by common
everyday experiences,but by a certain kind of imagination. It was precisely in
this sense that Bencdict Anderson, a leading theorist on nationalism, referred to
nations as "imagined communitics"
What is more, these new groups and communities also began to insistthat they
should have their own representative state. In other words, state systems should
not be external and alien to groups and communities (as was the case through
most of human history), but should emanate from the communities and should
be representative of them. This was really a novel situation. This congruence or
identification between the state and society was something quite novel and
unusual. These new features of the condition also became the defining features
of nation, nationalism and nation-state Emest Gellner, another important theorist
of nationalism, defined these terms in the opening paragraph of his book:
"Nationalism is primarily apolitical principle, which holds thatthe political and
the national unit should be congruent. Nationalism as a sentiment, or as a
movement, can best be defincd in terms of this principle. Nationalist sentiment
is the fecling of anger aroused by the violation of the principle, or the feeling of
satisfaction aroused by its fulfilment. Anationalist movement is onc actuated by
a sentiment ofthis kind" (Erncst Gcllncr 1983: ).
This definition of nationalism has the merit of clarity and explicitness. The only
problem with this is that it is contingent upon an understanding of nation. If
nationalism as a political principle represent a congruence of state (political unit)
and nation (national unit), then we should be able to definc nation, in order to Nation and Nationalism
understand nationalism, as per this definition. Adefinition of nation is not casy.
It is both difficult and contentious. Thec main trouble with any attempt to detinc
nation isthat at any given time, we would find a large numbcr of nations that do
not conformto that detinition. It would thus appear that the actual world of
nations is so diverse (in spite of their commonalitics) that no single definition
can hope to include them all.It is partly for this reason that scholars have gencrally
refrained from providing a universal definition of nation, applicable to all
situations. They have found it casicr to describe specific nations. It has been
muchmore dificult to abstract certain broad principles on the basis of spccific
experienees. Ernest Gcllner identificd two attributes that could possibly form
part of thc generic definition culture and will. But he was himsclfawarc of the
inadequacy of cither. and indccd both of them in correctly identifying alltypes
of nations. To quote him again:

"What thcn is this contingcnt. but in our age scemingly universal and normative,
idcaof the nation? Discussion of two very makcshift, tcmporary definitions will
help to pinpointthis clusive concept. I)Two men arc of the same nation if and
only if thcy sharc the same culturc, where culture in turn mcans a system of idcas
and signs and associations and ways of behaving and communication. 2)Two
men are of the same nation if and only if they recognize cach other as belonging
to the same nation. In other words, nations maketh man; nations are the artefacts
of men'sconvictions and loyalties and solidarities. Amere category of persons
(say. occupants of a given territory, or speakers of a given language, for example)
becomes a nation if and when the members of the category firmly recognize
certain mutual rights and dutices to cach other in virtue of their shared membership
of it...Each of these provisional definitions,the cultural and thevoluntaristic,
has some merit. Each of them singles out an element which is of real importance
in the understanding of nationalism. But neither is adequate. Definitions of culture,
presupposed by the first definition, in the anthropological rather than the
normative sense, are notoriously difficult and unsatisfactory. It is probably best
to approach this problem by using this term [nation] without attempting too
much in the way of formal definition." (Ibid., p.7)

1.2.2 Defining Nation and Nation-State

The definitionaldificulties mentioned in the previous section notwithstanding,
we can still, for the sake of clarity, attempt temporary, makeshift definitions of
thc two tcrms - nation and nation-state.

Perhaps the first step towards defining nation is to question and also reject its
naturalncss. Anation is not a natural human community, given to us. It is historical
category, i.c., it is a human community that has becn made in history and through
history. It is a product of certain historical conditions.
Prior to modern times, i.e., before emergence of nationalism in the late I8h and
ihe 19th centurics, thc word 'nation' was uscd in a whole range of ways. In
particular it was cmploycd cither in the sense of arace (a biological category)or
in the sense of a clan (a social category larger than the family and connccted
through ties).These usages had nothing in common with the present day usage
of the word 'nation' cxcept in so far as they all refer to a human collcctivity.
which shares ccrtain traits in common.
 Introd..

imparted to this understanding

towards tboth
wasErnest Renan, a French scholar. rejected he la he
decades of the element
new19h century.
Introduetion An entirely
racial/biological as well asthe natural definitions of nation. Insteaddhhe put forward
'will. memory and consciousness
voluntaristic definition
of nation, based on
a major characteristics:
This definition had two
prioriircality,
existing in a kind of
natural way.
) It did not see nations as an a formed through the forces of history.
Instead it saw nations as being
boundaries
the notion that nations were formed by natural
2) It also rejected oceans. Instead they were
formed by subjective
such as rivers, mountains and
consciousness.
factors such as wil and
breakthrough in the understanding of
nations. It looked
This indecd was a major understanding.
nations as contingencies brought about by human will. Upon this
at nations. They could be formed and
there was nothing stable or permanent about
delivered in 1882, Renan said:
alsodissolved. In his famous spcech on nations,
will end. They will
"Nations are not something eternal. They have begun: they
be replaccd in all probability, by a Europcan confederation. But such is not the
Taw of the century in which we live. At the present time the existence of nations
happens to be good, even necessary. Their existence is aguarantee of liberty,
which would be lost if the world hadonly one law and only one master.
There was however one major problem with this understanding, quite apart from
the fact that it concentrated solely on Europe. It accounted for nations very well
and effectively, by creating categories (will, memory and consciousness) that
could give as a clue to nations. But these categories were so general in nature
they could be found in most communities. Many non-national communities could
also be identified on the basis of will and consciousness. Indeed it can be said
that most, if not all, human communities can be defined on this basis. How to
then distinguish nation as a unique and distinctive human community from an
enormously large pool of all kinds of human communities? Renan's definition
captured the generic part of nations very wellbut neglected their distinctive part.
In other words, it had the merit of being veryinclusive. Its defect was that it was
not sufficiently exclusive.
Some of the shortcomings of Renan's understanding were addressed by Joseph
Stalin in 1913. He focused on the distinctive features of nations. Stalin defined
nations in the following words: "A nation is a historically constituted, stable
community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory.
eConomic life and psychological make-up manifested in a commonculture.
This definition laid down fve main features that would give us a clue to
nations:
historic continuity, common language, territory, common grid of economic life
and a common culture.

Stalin's understanding was in some ways the oppositeof Ranan's, even though
they both shared the basic digits that nations were formed and did not exist as an
apriori reality. If Renan approached nations from the generic side of the scale.
Stalin went to the other end and approached nations from the specific side. Stalin
highlighted the distinctive part so much that he perhaps ignored the role of general
attributes such as will and consciousness in the making of a nation. If we take
the example of Europcan Jews in the 20h century, we would find that the Jewish
nation is not adequately covered by Stalin's definition. But it is covered by
Renan's.
10
 Vation and Nationalism
There is no doubt that Stalin's definition was an advance over Renan's. But even
both the definitions put together cannot cover all the possible nations in the
world. What is the vital clement missing? Itis herc that Emest Gellner comes in
quite handy. He provided the missing clement in 1983 in his book Nations and
Nationalism. He put forward the important and somewhat controversial idea
that nations in thecnd are made by nationalism. and not the other way round. It
IS not the case that alrcady formed nations create their own justification through
the ideology of nationalism: but rather that nations are made by nationalisn. If
wcapply this understanding to thc Indian case. we would infer that it was not the
Indian nation that crcatcd Indian nationalism. but rather that the Indian nation
of
itself was created (along with various other factors. of course)by the ideology
Indian nationalism.
definition of nation.
The addition of this missing element can then complete our
and idcological.
If weput allthe thrce clements togcther - subjcctive, objcctive.
definition of nation that covers all the
we can say with confidence that we havc a
all nations and also exclusive
possible nations, which is inclusive enough to cover
human communities. Herc
cnough to distinguish nations from other non-national
a largc, anonymous human
is then our complctc definition: By nation we refer to features such as will.
subjective
community that is brought together by
consciousness and memory: objective features such as historic continuity,
common culture: and ideological
common language, territory, economic life and
fcatures such as nationalism.

The merit of this definition is that noactual, potential

or conceivable nation is
important however to
outside its net. Yet it excluded the non-nations. It is
all situations. Indian
remember that not all features of this definition apply to
language. Jewish or Polish
nationalism, for instance, was not based on a common
nationalisms were not based on common territory, or even acommon cconomic
instance) were not
life. Many other nationalists of Eastern Europe (Albania for
are covered by all the
bascd on any great historic continuity. So, not all nations
that allthe nations
features of the definition. But all in all, we can say that
definition and that no
actual or potential -are covered by some features of the
nation can possiblv exist outside this definition net.
(thanks
Once a comprehensive and inclusive definition of nation is available to us
Gellner in 1983.
to the contributions made by Renan in I882. Stalin in 1913 and
stretched over the period ofa hundred years), it is casier for us to understand
nationalism and nation-state. Nationalism, as mentioned earlier in this unit is the
insistence on the congruence of nation and state. in other words that the state
should be represcntative of the pcople. This is virtually a precondition of
nationalisnm. Anation-state is actually astate of this kind. The human history has
been pervaded by all kinds of state systems but none of them fulfilled this
nationalist condition. It is only under modern times and conditions that a new
type of state -nation-state -emerges in which the society and state are organically
connected to cach other. Toput it differently, nationalism is the main actor that
insists on the crcation of a nation-state. Nations are large modcrn communitics
which desire their own representative state. Nationalism actually helps to bring
1l about.

Having understood something about nations and nationalism at an elementary

level, it is now time to discuss the theorics of nationalism. i.c.. the major attempts
to cxplain this phenomenon.
 Introduction
Circumst
1.3 CHALLENGES BEFOREA THEORY OF
NATIONALISM
It is significant that the emergence of new national coMmunitics happencd to
coincide with another monumcntal phenomenon in the world-transformation
of theworld from agrarian to industrialand the creation of a newtype of social
order industrial society. Was it simply a coincidence or were the two
transformations (from small local communitics to largc national communitics
and from agrarian societies toan industrial social order) connccted to cach other
in acause-effect relationship? Many scholars thought that the two were integrally
conncctcd. Ernest Gellner provided a ncat and clegant thcory of how the
emergence of nationalism was the product of this transformation and was deeply
implicated in it. Many others have agreed with him on this point. Alarge number
of scholars have looked at nationalism, as distinctively modern, and some have
specifically linked it to industrialism. Upon this view, there was something about
industrialismthat created nations. The creation of nations was inherent in the
process ofindustrialism. Some ofthe features of the industrial society were such
that the raw material of diverse human communities began to be transformed
into the somewhat finished product of neat, standardized., homogenized, large
national communities. Evidently the great nationalist experiences of the world
required a theory that would be comprehensive enough to cover the range of
those expcriences. The theory focusing on industrialism did address some
questions but left some other questions unanswercd.

In particular there was one major trouble with the theory that linked nationalism
to industrialism. It is now clear that as industrialism developed, it was confined
to smallpockets of European countries. Nationalism, by comparison, had spread
to large parts of the world. Industrialism and nationalism may have begun at
roughly around the same time (late 18- 19h centuries) but after that their
trajectories became very dissimilar. Their trajectories also went contrary to
anticipations made about them. On industrialism the general anticipation was
that gradually industrial affluence would be diffused and would spread to other
parts of the world. Nationalism by comparison was considered a European, rather
than a global phenomenon. But both the anticipations turned out not to be the
case. Industrialism did not get diffused to the rest of the world in an even and
uniform manner. Instead it led to the creation of a European 'core' and a periphery
that consisted of thecountries ofAsia and Africa. The economies of these societies
werc placed at the service of the core. The core-periphery transactions were carricd
out through new devices such as imperialism and colonialism.
Nationalism by comparison did spread to the rest of the world and developcd as
truly a global phenomenon. There was nothing strictly European about it. It also
cast its spell on arcas and communities that were far from industrialised. This
then was a real challenge for a theory of nationalism that sought toexplain it in
terms of the spread of industrialism and located it within the matrix of
industrialism. This called fora new approach and a different explanation.
It should be quite clear that a phenomenon as widespread as nationalism
could
not have come about simply as an accident. If large parts of the world went
through a similar experience, broadly at the same time, then there must be a
valid explanation for it. Moreover there also must be broadly similar set
of
12
 RY OF
unites hap ened
transformatio.
ype ofsocia
the two
circumstances giving
betwecn 19th
birth to nationalisn What
for
century Lngland and 20h century India?instancc was commo
industrialcountry and an imperialist suncr Onc was an advance
Nation and Nationalism

DuIhenr it es backward country undergoing

Imperialist
nower. The other
domination.
was an cconomicany
Which
circumstances could have brought about nationalism in both thesecommon sct of
socicties?
It was partly for dilemmas such
as the oncs
have onc dominant theory of nationalism, butnentioncd abovc, that we do To
many. It is not so much that we
have d1fferent types of nationalisms. Butwe do have very
different
cxplanations
1or the cmergencc of nationalism, So diverecnt arc thesc cxplanations
that
Benedict Andcrsons has written:"..it is hard to think of any political phenomenon
Which remains so puzzling and about which there is less analytic consensus. No
Widely acceptcd definition cxists. Noonc has bcen able to demonstrate dccis1vely
Cther its modernity or its antiquity...any collcction of writings on nationalism]
Inds the authors more often with their backs to one another, staring out at
different, obscure horizons, than cngagcd in hand to hand combat." (Bcncdict
Andcrson, "Introduction" in Gopal Balakrishnan (cd.), Mapping the Nation, p.
1). He also stated that the political power of nationalism is matched by its
philosophical poverty. This implics that whercas everybody recognizes the
political power nationalism enjoys in modern world, there is very little conscnsus
on what has brought it about. Let us therefore turn to different ways in which
nationalism has been understood and explaincd by social scientists.

1.4 THEORIES OF NATIONALISM

Before we illustrate the different theories of nationalism, one or two general
points may be made. All the theorists of nationalism would agree that a
phenomenon as pervasive and widespread as nationalism cannot be explained
only by specific or endogenous factors or factors operative within the society. It
can only be satisfactorily explained by external or exogenous factors, or factors
from outside the particular society. As Tom Nairn, a leading scholar on
nationalism, has put it: "However, it is not true that nationalism of any kind is
really the product of these internal motions as such... Welsh national- ism
[emphasizing the nation] of course has much to do with the specifics of the
Welsh pcople, their history, their particuiar forms of oppression and all the rest
of it. But Welsh national- ism [emphasizing the Ism]- that generic, universal
necessity recorded in the very term we are very interested in -has nothing to do
with Wales. It is not a Welsh fact, but a fact of general developmental history,
that at a spccific time the Wclsh land and pcople arc forccd into the historical
process in this fashion." (Tom Nairn, The Break-up of Britain: Crisis and Neo
Nationalism.)

The main differencc among thethcorists of nationalism lies in the identification

of these external factors. Some would look at nationalism as a necessary stage of
human development that all societies must go through, sooner or later. Some
others might see it in more general terms as the unfolding of the 'human spirit',
or agreat social and psychological need for identity, or for identifying with a
larger wholc. But allwould agrcc that the phenomenon of nationalism has a
broad, trans-country. generic explanation. If nationalismcan be identified on the
basis of some comnon traits, experienced by different societies broadly at the
same time (18h - 20 centuries), then there must be some general explanations
for it. 13
Introduction However similaritics among thcorists end here. The theorists may all agreeon a
nced for theory but not on the substance of the theories. They offer very diverse
Cxplanations for nationalism. These differences can be best understood through
binaries. These binaries range from looking at nationalis1m as either an accident
Or a great human necd, either necessary or contingent, either ideational (i.c..
product of certain idcas) or matecrialist, cither a false consciousness or a great
human aspiration,cither brought about by certain important social groups or by
structures. But the most important binary is that between modernists and non
modernists. Let us look at this binary in sonme details.
1.4.1 Non-Modernist Theories
As far as theories of nationalism are concerned, perhaps the biggest dividing
line is between modernist and non-modernist ones. The modernists look upon
nationalism as a modem phenomenon and a product of not more than the last
three centuries. On the other side of the divide are the non-modernists who refuse
to privilege the modern period for an understanding of nationalism and instead
look at the larger spread oftime. Their argument is that aphenomenon as deeply
pervasive and implicated in human life as nationalism could not have simply
been created in such a short span of time and that the phenomenon must have
evolved over a long stretch of time.
At this stage it is necessary to highlight that both the positions modernist as
well as non-modernist are internally quite diverse. Not all modernists agree
with each and share little in common except for being modernists. Likewise
non-modernists too come in all shapes and sizes. They could easily bc divided
between evolutionists, naturalists and perennialists. Naturalists often see the
nation as something natural and rooted in human mind. They see nationalism as
avery natural human sentiment. Upon this understanding, it is somehow natural
for people to be nationalists. Since they consider it as natural, they do not have to
provide any explanation for it. One major scholar for instance referred to
nationalism as a state of mind". Naturalists do not use expressions like rise or
growth or emergence of nationalism. They only talk about a permanent, timeless
presence of nationalist feeling in the minds and hearts of people. Nationalism
therefore does not need an explanation. Upon this nationalist view, it is not
nationalism but its absence that has to be explaincd.
Close to the naturalists position is the perennialist position. This is often found
in the approach of nationalists themselves. The practitioners and ideologues of
nationalism often tend to scc their brand of nationalism as fully formcd in their
history. To take an example, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the ideologue and propagator
of Pakistani nationalism, often said from 1940 onwards, that a Muslim nation
was not a product of recent political developments,but that a Muslim nation
existed in a fully finished form in the medieval past. When Jinnah was asked
about the exact location of his Muslim nation and when it came into being, he
provided an interesting answer: Pakistan alrcady existed since a long time; it
was not created in the recent past. He clarified further in aspeech: "Pakistan
was not the product of the conduct or nmisconduct of Hindus. It had always been
there;only they (Muslims]werc not conscious ofit....Pakistan startcd the moment
the first non-Muslim was converted to Islam long before the Muslims established
heir rule....Througlhout the ages Hindus had remained Hindus and Muslims had
remained Muslims and they had not merged their entities - that was the basis for
j4 Pakistan" (Jinnah's speech in Aligarh, March 1944, Khurshid Ahmad Khan Yusufi
 ier very al diverse
erstod through agre on
nac ident
a

i.
Nation and Nationalism
(cd.). Speeches, Statements and Messages of the Ouaid-e-Azam, Vol. III. pp.
1840-41). This was aclassic example of nationalism as an 'invented tradition'
At this stagc it is ncccssary to bring out the distinction bctwcen anationalist
position and a position on nationalism. All nations have a 'self-image' as
articulatcd by the nationalist ideologucs or the lcaders. It is important for us to
understand this self-image, which tells us a great deal aboutthat particular nation.
But it is equally important for us not lo endorse it as necessarily valid. In other
words, nations and nationalism should be understood as rcal and powcrful
sociological phenomena, but their reality is quite different from the tale told
about them by nationalists themselves. In thescholarly works on nationalism.
thc perennialist position has bccn understood and described as an "invcntcd
tradition", What is invented tradition? The idca of "invented tradition" carries
the following connotation:
Nationalists tend to usc and invoke thec past and traditions as a lcgitimizing
device to validate their nationalist projects.
in the
2) They also claim legitimacy for their nation by claiming its prcsence
past.
past, history and traditions, or as a continuation from the
as it was, but rathcr it is
3) In such a projcction, thc tradition is not presentcdtradition
invented or manufactured. The invention of the is done in such a
could justify his Muslim
manner to as to support nationalist claims. Jinnah
between Hindus
nation,only by asserting that there had been no interaction
nation existed since a long time in Indian
and Muslims and hence a Muslim
history. In this way, antiquity and tradition were being used to provide
not being
legitimacy for a fully modern 'Muslim nation'. The tradition was
invoked as it was; it was being tailored and projected in a such a manner
so
nation. One way of seeking this
as to justify and legitimize the Muslim
legitimacy was to show the presence of this 'Muslim
nation' in the distant
'invented'.
past and in tradition. For this purpose, the tradition was being
Eric
The concept ofinvented traditions" was coined by leading historian
Hobsbawm and it has been a useful concept in understanding the nature of
nations and nationalism.

Yet another important non-modernist position is the cvolutionist onc. It recognizes

the pervasive presence of nationalism in the modern period but argues that it can
be explained by going to the pre-modern period of human history. This argument
focuscs on prc-cxisting cultural traditions, hcritages and various other cthnic
ties, sentiments and collective memories "which have coalesced over the
generations" and thus contributed to the emergence of nations in modern times.
To take an examplc, the naturc and pattcrn of modern Grcck nationalism can be
understood better by focusing on both the period of Byzantine imperialism and
also the classical antiquity. Anthony D.Smith is one of the major proponents of
this approach. This approach looks not at the broad and gencral patterns but
features spccificto cach society. It does not focus so much on what is common
toall nations, butrather on what is distinctive about cach nation.
1.4.2 Modernist Theories

As against the non-modernist approaches towards understanding nationalism

arc the modernist oncs. As mentioncd carlicr, not all modernists agrcc with onc
another, and that the modernist camp is as diverse as the non-modernist one, if I5
 moor;
was prov1ded by Flie
arguments
Introduction of the earliest modernist as a doctrine ( as
not more so. One at nationalism primarily
Europe
Kedouri looked history of modern
Kedouri in 1961. intellectual
in the
saw it as rootedself-explanatory: "Nationalism is a
doctrine
against aforcc) and is
his book Kedouri,
The first sentence of beginning of the 19h century." (Elie
nvented in Europe at
the
non-structural explanation
of nationalismwhich
Nationalism, p. I) This
wasa spccific conditions, but
rooted, not in concrete structures and alternative
Saw nationalism as some Europcan thinkers. An effective
of
merely in idcas and doctrines Ernest Gellner who providcd the structural
provided by
to Kedouri was
Cxplanation.
thetransformation
nationalis1mas theintegral part of
Gcllner saw the cmergence of thcory is both structural
industrial., Inthis sensc his
of the world from agrarian to does not see it as the result of
matcrialist. It is structural in thesense that he
and economic
individual but as the unfolding of new
the activitics ofa fewgroups and culture. His theory
interplays of power and
and productive forces creating new the basic
materialist in tlhe sense that it looks not as ideas and doctrines as
Is
Rather it sees nationalism as thc product
motor in thecmcrgcncc of nationalist.
theory does recognize the primacy
of the functioning of new material forces. The
conditions. Following is in brief the essence
of cconomic forces in creating new
of Gellner's theory of nationalism:

and unprecedented type of

For reasons not clcar to anyonc, a new, distinctive
shores of Europe around
cconomy emerged and was established on the Atlantic
economy,
the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century. This new
features, compared
generically called the industrial economy, had some unique
economy
tocarlier economies.One, It was based on perpetual growth. Indeed the
could survive only ifit grew and kept growing. The growing economy completely
dismantled the stability of the old order. Two, It required full or substantial literacy
for its functioning. This literacy had to be of a homogenous kind so that a large
also
number of anonymous people, unfamiliar with one another, could
communicate with one another. Three, It was characterised by remarkable
mobility, both occupation and spatial. Large numbers of people were uprooted
from their traditional occupations, locations and cultures. As a result of the
functioning of the new economy, they were thrown around from their cosy
community settings and were placed in unfamiliar and alien situations. Four, the
new economy was also based on egalitarianism. The new economy operated like
a hurricane or a huge tidal wave that destroyed the earlier hierarchies based on
rank and status. It destroyed old cultures, old structures, old hierarchies and also
old community isolation. The mobility and anonymity of the new order created
conditions for egalitarianism. Five, the preservation of the old, elite high-culture
was found to be completely incompatible with the functioning of the new
economy. Under the new situation, the high culture of theelites could not remain
confined to the few at the top. It had to become shared and pervasive. So, both
the multiple local folk cultures and an exclusive high culture were replaccd and
transformed into a pervasive and a shared high culture.
The new cconomy was backed up by modern science and technology and was so
powerful that it destroycd the old order and , in time, replaced it with a new
social order. The earlier faultlines in the European society (based on rank and
status) were eroded and replaced by new boundaries based on culture. New
cultures (based on the earlier exclusive high cultures and local folk cultures)
i6 developedin these societies and most members, deprived of theirearlier cultural
 mo de byEle
mi odern docEturropiene
eKedouri. (as
hi
doctrine moorungs,
state
to be incorporated into the
aspircd new cultures. At the
became veryimportant. The new CCOnOMic same time, the Vation and ationalism
roleofthe
apparatus became
lare that it could be ctleetively managcd only be the state. The state couldso
m:ntanit
onl ifit cnjoyed the support and the allegiance
of the
socetV Partnership coulddbe built only if all were people. This
ctietinc state-s

culture It was theretore necessary that the state should be

members of the
this called for avery representative of
the socet All new type of arrangCment:
ONitay pcople, having been deprived of their cultural moorings,
hM aspre to lne with dignity only as members of the new high could
The new hugh culture could be promoted and culture.
protected only by the state.
But that eould happen only if the pcople and the statc belonged
eultune. llence the neeessity of a state as representative to the samc
of the people and
thm the same cultural stock as the people.
The new cOnomy was so large that it could not cflectively run without
the
artieiation of a large number of people. But people had to bc traincd for
the new jobs and roles. Hence 'cducation' became very
necessary. This
duwation had to be unifomly imparted across different categories
be etetively provided only by the state. Therefore state and could
became very
inmortant. In the process ofinparting common cducation, state also released
homogenizing forces, which helped in the creation of the new cultural
COmmunily (or communities), tied through common culture.
The state could not carry out its task till it had the support and allegiance of
the people. It was necessary that people belong' to the state and that this
belonging should be dircct without bcing mediated by any other ties of
kinship and community.
In other words, people should become citizens and should be directly responsible
to the state.

In the functioning of all these processes, nationalism becomes the inevitable and
inescapable conscquenee. The moden economy requires it: the modern state
requires it:the society also requires it. This is the crux of Gellner's explanation
for nationalism.

Gellner provided a credible theory of nationalism. One major problem with it

was that it did notseem to correspond to developments in India or indeed in
other colonies. The strength of Gellner's theory was that it captured the global
nature of the phenomenon very well. Yet it did not secm to adequately cover the
nationalist experiences of the colonial societies of Asia and Africa. Indeed it
could be said that his theory had been constructed almost entirely on the basis of
Western European experiences and then universalised as valid for all of mankind.
Is there a theorv that can be said to have done justice to the experiences of the
colonial societies? It is here that Tom Naim comes in quite handy. In his book.
Break-L'p of Great Britain, Tom Nain has explained nationalism as having
emanated not from the industrialized European societies but from the colonial
soCieties.

Tom Nairn is both modermist and universalist. He is modernist in the sense that
he sees nationalism as a product of the last two centuries. He is universalist
because he looks at nationalism as a specific feature of the general historical
development of modern world. For him nationalism is an inevitable and integral
consequence of aparticular stage ofhuman development. In clearer terms,
Nairn
 CManati
Introduction sees nationalism as a consequence of the capital1st transformation of the w.o Con
esse
and of the uneven underdevelopment inherent in capitalism.Here is the
of his theory:
towards the end
The world capitalism that emerged in certain pockets of Europe myth was that
The
of the 18h centuries, created a 'myth`of 'even development".
world. But in reality no
gradually capitalism would get diffused throughout the by creating a
flourished
such even diffusion was possible. Capitalism actually
'periphery' outside the area
'core' (of advance capitalist countries ofEurope) and a
at the servicc of the core.
of the new industrial-capitalist-world cconomy , and
The acute humiliation of unevennesswas soon felt
in the periphery (the colonial
societies soon discovered that
societies of Asia and Africa). The clite in these
in the concrete for them.
progress in the abstract only mcant 'domination
Morcover, this domination was exercised by powers
that were alien and foreign.
imperialism and colonialism. It
In other words capitalis1n created a system of became synonymous with
was in this sense that humanity's forward march
that they were
Westernization'. In the colonial societies the elites discovered
incorporation in it was
being excluded from the new system and that their full
the colonies had to be trampled
Just notpossible. Alarge majority of thepeople innew
Over rather than initiated into the rules of the game. They could only be
exploited in the new system, not made partners in it at any stage.
capitalism had two
So it became clear to the elites in the colonial societies that
different faces. Whereas it brought wealth, afluence and mobility to the European
world. it brought cconomic underdevelopment and political subjugation to the
people of the colonies. Nationalism was a reaction to this situation. The elite in
the colonial societies had to take the initiative in organising resistance to this
situation of domination, exploitation and exclusion. This meant theconscious
organisation, mobilisation and formation ofa national community, cutting across
class lines and focusing on the separate identity of this community. These clite
did not have the cconomic and political institutions of modernity with whose
help they could create this community. Therefore it had to be done on the basis
of inherited past, speech, folk-lore, skin colour, etc. The new middle-class
intelligentsia of nationalism had to invite the masses into lhistory: and the invitation
card had to be written in alanguage they understood." Henee the focus on the
language of the people. This new venture created a vertical alliance of the elite
and the masses against foreign domination and united them in a common struggle
to get rid of this domination. Nationalism was inherent in this process of the
joint struggle of the elite and the masses against imperialism.
This really is the essence ofTom Nairn's theory. As you can see, this is essentially
amodernist understanding of nationalismbut very different from other modernist
understandings which concentrated their attention on Europe. Tom Nairn, as
you can se, is very close to the Indian experience of nationalism. His theory applies
to anti-colonial nationalisms in general and Indian nationalism in particular.
It should be clear from the preceding discussion that it is necessary for us to talk,
not of one grand theory but, of many and different theories of nationalism. Even
those who share a basicpremise or concern (such as the modernists do), offer
very different explanations for the phenomenon of nationalism. Some focus on
jdeas and doctrines and some on concrete processes. Some focus on the role and
18 activities of groups and classes and some on structures. Some see nationalism as
 CLanaing from within the heart ofcapitalism and some
the uneven sprcad of capitalism and as a look at it as the Nation and Nationalism

in theories is quite reaction toimperial1sm

coIsqUcnceof

colonialism. This diversity

and!
have been So varicd that no incvitable. Nationalist
cpericnces

single theory can be expected to

satisfactorily provide the explanation applicableto all
situations.
L.5 INDIAN NATIONALISM
What about Indian nationalism? Does it fit into the
itnecd a separate theory of its own? It would be best tocstablished
look
theorics or does
at Indian nationalism
as a casc-study of nationalism in gencral, but as an
impotant and
case-study. It may not be nccessary to construct a separate theory distinctive
of
nationalism, but rather that general theories of nationalism will have Indian
modified and tailored so as to accommodate the ndian case-study. Perhapsto be
one
should separately look at the two components of the Indian experience - the
Indian component (specific) and the nationalist (generic) onc. It should therefore
be seen both as ndian nationalism and also as Indian nationalisn.

The generic component first. It is nccessary to highlight the modernity of the

Indian nation. Even though India is an old civilisational society with a long
continuous history of many centuries, Indian nation is a modern phenomenon.
Large parts of India were ruled by many large empires in the past (Mauryan,
Gupta. Mughal) and this dynastic continuity did help in thc evolution if an Indian
identity during the pre-modern period. Yet it would not be correct to spcak of an
Indian nation prior to the 19h century. So whereas an Indian society or an Indian
civilization certainly existed, a national community of Indian people certainly
did not. An Indian nation was made the 19th and the 20h centuries by the
ideology of Indian nationalism under conditions of British imperialism. So we
can say that the general explanations ofnationalism in terms of astage ofhistory
would be relevant for an understanding of Indian nationalism too.
meant that
Indian nationalism was territorial rather than ethnic or religious. This
the basis of territory and nor religion.
the claim to Indianness was put forward on
member of the national
Anyone who lived on the India soil was considered a
community. It was not so much the common culture or a common language (as
elucidated by Stalin's definition) that went into the making
of the national
exploitation under British
community, but rather the common economic
imperialism.
nationalism also had some distinctive
Apart from some general features, Indian
features of its own. In the second half of the 19h century, the
Indian intelligentsia
bureaucrats and ethnographers
was constantly told by some British scholars,
nation. One British scholar John
that there was not., nor could ever be, an Indian
Progress (1888): *This
Strachey, wrote in his book, lndia: lts Administration and that there is not and
about India
is the first and most essential thing to learn
according to European
never was an India or even any country of India, possessing
religious: no Indian nation,
ideas, any sort of unity, physical, political, social or
John Seeley wrote in
no 'people of India', of which we hear so much." Likewise is anationality
his book, The Expansion of England(1883): "The notion that India aims at eradication.
rests upon that vulgar error which political science principally
India is not a political name, but only a geographical cxpression like Europe or
Africa. It does not mark the territory of anation anda language, but the territories
of many nations and many languages." 19
 Was
Com..

in
Indg
Introduction
inherent impossibility of the Indian naton
t was broadly in these terms that the expression". The
was highlighted. India was referred to as *a mere geographical
linguistic and
British colonial discourses on India emphasized India's cultural,
Gngious diversity and looked upon it as a barrier to the development of
ind1an
nationhood. One way of reacting to these statements would have been to go v
to the mythical unity of Indian people in the past. But the majority of naiat
intellectuals refrained from replving to the 'nonation' charge with an alwaySa
nation' assertion. They did not go over to the other extreme. Bipan Chandra
Writcs: *The initiators of the Indian National Movement, the 19th century
intellectuals, did not denythe British assertion that India was not yet a naut
1ney readily accepted that India was not yet a formed nation despite common
history, geography and the clements of a common culture. They also acceptea
that nation and nationalism had nÍt existed in India in the past.They acknowledged
the incoherence of India as also the existence of multiplicity of
They also acccpted that nation was not a natural or identities in it.
was a historical creation. But they denied that India inevitable phenomnenon but
could not becomea nation.
They answered the imperialist taunts by claiming that
gradually bringing the Indian people together and that India historical forces were
process of becoming a nation. India, they said, was a had now entered the
was the title of Surendranath Banerjee's nation-in-the-making, which
Making of the Indian Nation'", in Indica,autobiography." (Bipan Chandra, "The
March 2004, p. 21).
And so, one important feature of the thinking
was to make a distinction between nation and of the 19th century Indian thinkers
of the Indian nation. They argued that civilization and highlight the novclty
India was old civilization , but a new
nation. Even those leaders who highlighted
and glorified India's past, recognized the the superiority of Indian civilization
Vivekanand said in 1896:*A nation is being modernity of the Indian nation. Swami
Isometimes think they are no less various made out of India's different races.
The 19th centuryIndian leaders constantly than the different peoples of Europe."
made
India, "new national spirit", "development of references to "new nation", new
be said that 'invention of tradition' as a nationhood'" etc. It can there fore
to by the 19h century Indian nationalists.
standard nationalist device was not resorted
the antiquity of the Indian nation. It was The focused on the novelty rather than
some leaders considered Indian nation to however later in the 20h century that
be perennial and always present in
Indian history. They also glorified India's past and
on India's present. traditions and projected them
Apart from this feature, Indian nationalism was
was plural in the sense that the Indian plural, non-coercive and civil. It
nationalist
Indian diversity but refused to consider it as a leaders recognized the great
weakness or an obstacle that would
have to go away in the journey towards nationhood. In
consciously promoted the idea of the Indian nation as beingother words, they
plurality rather than cultural monism. Perhaps the best statementbased on cultural
plurality and linking it with nationalism came from Mahatma Gandhi endorsing India's
in his weekly journal Harijan in 1940: "India is a who wrote
big country, a big nation,
composed of different cultures which are tending to blend with one
cach complementing the rest. IfI must wait for the completion of this another,
must wait. It may not becompleted in myday. Ishalllove to die in the process,
faith
I
it must come in the fullness of time." As is clear from that
Gandhi's statement, the
Indian nationalist leaders fully recognized that nation making
for India was a
20
long process and far from accomplished. And that India's diversity was no obstacle
 together. Nation and Nationalism
Nationalism andpluralism could be combined
inIndia's nationhood. constitution in 1950. the
acquired a
When Inda became independent and language as the
national
recognized any single
Constitution makers refused to designated all
Indian languages and
language. Rather, they enlisted 14important
official languages has now
of them as oficial languages. The number of India's
increased to 22.
non-coercive. It is true that all nationalisms
Indian nation has also been remarkably national
and thev try to create a large pool of really
are essentially homogenizing forces to merge. This
culture in which all local and minority cultures: are expected comparison was
Indian nation by
Is the story of most nations of the world. 'consensus but this
remarkable non-coercive. It was based on the
jdea of
Both during the period of the
consensus was not to be enforced from the top.
anti-imperialist struggle, and during the independence
period, national unity was
promoted through non-coercive ways and methods.
certain features of Indian nationalism that
lo sum up this section, there are
illustrated in the theories. But it
conform to general pattern of nationalism as theories.
covered by the
also has its own specific features which may not be principles of nationalism
Therefore it is essential that the general theories and
accommodate different and diverse
should retain enough flexibility to be able to
nationalist experiences in different parts of the world.

1.6 SUMMARY

explanations for the emergence of

This Unit has highlighted some of the major
following points have been made in the
the phenomenon of nationalism. The
Unit:

Anelementary understanding of termssuch

as nation, nationalism and nation
enquiry. Nation should be understood as
state is absolutely essential for our
community. Nationalism is a political
a very special and distinctive human
community should have its own
principle that insists that this national in which
example of such a State
representative State. Nation-State is the
and emanates from it. To put it
the State is representative of the nation
different types of human communities
have dotted the earth.
differently,
and a special one,
Nation is one such human community, but a very unique
19h century under particular
which appeared on the scene only towards the have made their
systems
circumstances. Likewise, various kinds of state
appearance in human history. Nation-State is
one such State but a very unique
on the scene only from 19th
anda special one. Nation-States also appearedtwo nation and the Nation
the
century onwards. The linkages between
State - can only be understood with
reference to nationalism. Nationalism
brings the two together.
into modernist and non
The theories of nationalism can be broadly divided
nationalism to be a modern
modernist ones.The modernist theories consider
the 19h and the
phenomenon belonging to the history of the world during nationalism
theories tend to see
20h centuries. Some of the non-modernist
Some
as a 'natural human fecling' not requiring any particular explanation. in
others see nationalism as a prolonged evolution, spread over centuries
communities evolved into national
which various cultural or linguistic
communities. 21
Introduction
An influential modernisttheory of nationalism has been provided by Ermest
Gellner. Gellner locates the emergence of nationalism in the transformation
of the world from agrarian to industrial. The functioning of the new industrnal
socicty was such that it nccessitated the creation of large national
communitics. In other words there was something about the features and
functioning of the industrial society that resulted in the emergence of
nationalism as a forcc, all over the world.

However, there was onc major problem with Gellner's theory. Thc specific
features of theindustrial society,. as outlined by Gellner, were fully operative
only in the developed Europcan socicties. Nationalism, by contrast, emerged
as a truly global force, active as much in the non-developed non-European
Zones of the world as in the Europcan oncs. There question therefore was:
how to cxplain theemergence of nationalism in the countries of Asia and
Africa, which had not experienced the afMluence and growth brought about
by industrialism?
This question was answered by Tom Nairn, another modernist theorist of
nationalism. Tom Nairn also, like Gellner, linked nationalism to the
functioning o the global capitalist economy. But, unlike Gellner, he located
his explanation, not in the growth, literacy and mobility of the industrial
societies, but in the unevenness, dislocation and disparity crcated by
industrialism, particularly across societies. This unevenness divided the
world into a 'Europcan core' and an 'Asian and African periphery'. In other
words, capitalism created imperialism and colonialism. The elite of the
periphery in particular experienced the humiliation of this unevenness. In
order to counter it, they worked towards creating larger communities in
unity and solidarity, cutting across lines, to fight imperialist domination. lt
was in this process that nationalism emerged in the colonies.

Undoubtedly Tom Naim's theory comes closer to the actual process in which
a national community of Indian people evolved in the 19h and the 20th India.
The Indian nationalist experience can be best understood fwe divide it into
a 'generic' and a 'specific' component. The generic component would be
broadly similar to the process of nation-formation in other societics.
However, the Indian experience had its own distinctive features. This Unit
has highlighted both the generic and the specific features.
To sum up, in order to properly understand and explain Indian nationalism.
it is necessary to have a twin focus. One, we need to focus on the generic
conditions and the unfolding of the global forces that resulted in the
emergence of nationalism. At the samne time, we need to focus on the specific
Indian conditions that played a role in evolving a national community of the
Indian people. The theories of nationalisnm need to take both the generic and
the society-specific factors into consideration.

1.7 EXERCISES

1) Discuss the modenist thcories about the cmergence of nations and nationalism.
2) Critically discuss the various definitions of nations and nation-states.
3) What arc the non-modernist theorics of nationalism? What is their
importance?
22