"Nationalism in India"

[p. 35] In the foregoing pages we have established fundamentally that in sociology the nationalistic view point stands in total contradiction to the Islamic view-point. Therefore, if Muslim is one who upholds the Islamic ideology in every concern of life, and if the word "Muslim" does not mean anything else, it follows automatically that a Muslim, wherever and in whatever condition he happens to be, must fight against nationalism. This principle having accepted, it becomes futile to think what part should Muslims play in the nationalistic movement of this or that country? But when we are told that nationalism should be encouraged in India and that the salvation of India lies in the progress of this thing, we feel ourselves obliged to consider the special conditions prevailing in India and examine as to what is, or what would [p. 36] be, the ultimate end of the progress of nationalism in this land, and determine whether the salvation of India really lies in this procedure.

The Essentials of Nationalism

Nationalism can take birth in a country only if there exists a nationality already, or if it does not exist already it should come into being now, because the conception of nationalism without the presence of a nationality is devoid of any sense. Nationalism is, indeed, another name for nationality inflamed. Where there is no fire there can be no flame.

Now it is to be ascertained what kind of nationality is required to enkindle the flame of nationalism.

One kind of nationality is the “political nationality,” that is, people who are governed by one political system, are, in virtue of this political unity looked upon as one nation. For this type of nationality it is not necessary that there should be a homogeneity in the sentiments and susceptibilities, thoughts and opinions, moral dispositions, traditions, language, literature, and mode of living of those who participate in it. They may differ from one another entirely in all these respects, yet may form one political nationality and this unity would remain intact so long as they may be associated with one political system. If the various sections of people not only differ from but also oppose one another, that is, if their national aims and aspirations [p. 37] mutually conflict and they indulge in actual struggles against one another, even then their political nationality would remain one. The word "nationality" is, indeed, applied to this kind of unity, but it is obvious, this is not that nationality which gives birth to nationalism.

The second type of nationality is that which is known as the “cultural nationality.” This nationality is found among those people who are of one religion; who are identical in their thoughts and ideas and sentiments and feelings; who display the same kind of moral characteristics; who hold a common view-point in relation to all the important problems of life—a viewpoint which may have effected a uniformity even in the cultural and social manifestations of their life; who take common standards of likes and dislikes, lawfulness and unlawfulness, sacredness and profaneness; who mutually understand their susceptibilities; who are familiar with the habits, temperaments and leanings of one another; who are bound together by the ties of blood and affection because of inter-marriages and social relations; who are liable to be motivated by the same kind of historical traditions—in short it is found only among those who mentally, spiritually, morally, culturally and socially have become one people, one organic whole. If nationalism can sprout, it can do so only in the soil of such nationality. Only those people, who manifest this nationality, can develop a common national type and evolve a common national idea. It is from the attachment to this [p. 38] national type and the perfection of this national idea that nationalism takes its origin. The same thing later on develops into that "national-self" into which an individual prefers to lose his own "self." After this when some actual or imaginary thing happens to hamper the growth of the national-self then to remove it is enkindled that passion which is called nationalism.

Are the Factors of Nationalism obtainable in India?

Keep the above analysis in view and take a stock of the Indian situation. Do you really find in this land the foundation of nationalism? Political nationality is, indeed, found here, because the inhabitants of this country are bound under one political system, governed by one and the same kind of social and economic laws; one steel-frame holds them all in its grip. But as pointed out above, mere political nationality is not sufficient to originate the sentiment of nationalism. This kind of nationality existed in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in Britain and Ireland, in Czarist Russia, in the Ottoman Empire, in Czecho-Slovakia, in Yugoslavia, and in many other countries, but it could breed nationalism nowhere. Even common desires for freedom and common hardships and dangers are not adequate to give birth to nationalism. Nationalism can take birth only from cultural nationality; and everyone who has [p. 39] eyes can see that the people of India do not constitute a cultural nationality.

If the fact is this why does one speak here of nationalism at all? Can the talk of a child, where there is no trace of a mother, mean anything other than stupidity? Those who plead that nationalism should be encouraged in this country should learn that this child can come out of the womb of cultural nationality alone, and before the child is born the birth of the mother is essential. When they have learned this truth thoroughly they will have to modify their claim. Before they think of encouraging nationalism in India, they will have to say that they want to build a cultural nationality which may subsequently hatch an Indian nationalism.

How can Indian Nationalism take birth?

First consider the question: how can a cultural nationality spring up here and what would be its possible consequences?

In a country which abounds in cultural nationalities a new nationality can form only in either of the two ways:—

(1) The culture of one nation may conquer and absorb the cultures of other nations;

(2) A common culture may evolve by mutual interaction and interfusion of all the cultures.

The first possibility is here out of question, because the advocates of Indian nationalism cannot make it their cherished goal. It can [p. 40] become the goal of only those who plead for "Hindu Nationalism" or "Muslim Nationalism."* As for the Indian Nationalists, they can unite only on the basis of the second proposition. And indeed, they often discuss in their own circles as to how can a composite [p. 41] nationality be evolved by compounding together the different nationalities in this country. But in this connection they talk so childishly that, it appears, that they neither understand the nature of cultural nationality, nor are informed as by what process and under what laws does take place the interfusion of such nationalities, nor again, they have considered it, for once, as to what is the type of the nationality which results from such interfusion. They regard it as a child-play and also want to play it like children.

Cultural nationality is, in fact, the name of mental temperament and moral constitution of a nation. This thing is not achieved in a day or two by artificial means, rather it evolves through centuries in a natural order. For hundreds of years, from generation to generation, a people live together, subscribing to the same creed, customs and traditions, it is then that a common spirit manifests itself in them, common moral characteristics stabilise, a special mental temperament develops, the traditions take root which govern their emotions and sentiments, the literature comes into being which reflects their mind and heart, and the intellectual and moral harmony arises which prepares them for mutual intelligibility and affection. Moreover when under these deep and powerful influences a group is transformed into a permanent nationality, or in other words, when its moral and mental temperament stabilises, it becomes impossible for it to intermingle [p. 42] with some other group and convert itself into some other nationality. Often times such groups live together as neighbours for hundreds of years under the same climate and in the same soil but no kind of interfusion takes place at all. In Europe the Germans, the Magyars, the Poles, the Czechs, the Jews, the Slavs and many other similar nationalities have been living in the same environment for ages together but uptil this day no interfusion has occurred amongst them. The English and the Irish lived together for centuries but could not be blended into one. Sometimes these groups share a common language but a unity of tongue does not effect a unity of hearts and minds. Words may be common but they arouse different sensations and thoughts in the minds of different people.

No doubt, in some cases different cultural groups, having lived together over a wide stretch of time, can mould into a perfect and correct type of composite nationality. But it happens only when their moral systems and mental temperaments do not differ from one another significantly and violently, but rather resemble one another closely. (This condition is essential if cultural results of a high order are to be produced). In this case their distinct moral characteristics and their separate national individualities are obliterated and superseded by a unified system of morals. But even this process is not so easy as said. Action and reaction, integration and disintegration continue for ages and epochs, it is then that the different factors combine and [p. 43] harmonise into one organic whole. In England the Britons, the Saxons and the Normans took centuries to consolidate into one nation. In France this process has continued for the last one thousand years but up to now has not been able to build the right kind of nationality. In Italy up to this day no common national spirit has appeared, although all the different elements, which have gone to compose the Italian nationality, do not bear any appreciable antagonism to one another, from the moral point of view. In the United States of America only those elements have interfused to make a nationality which possessed almost the same moral characteristics, and who were compelled by common interests to lay aside, at once, their trivial differences and incongruities and become one body one soul. But even this process has taken about three hundred years to complete.

Nations which possess similar moral characteristics can interfuse to form a good and perfect type of nationality, because in experiencing this interfusion they are not called upon to divorce their creeds and conceptions and their moral standards and wipe out summarily their high moral attributes. These things already happen to be common amongst them. Their new nationality is built by a mere amendment of traditions and a readjustment of emotions and sentiments and aims and aspirations. On the other hand when nations possessing different moral characteristics are interfused by some artificial pressure, by some counterfeit effort, by some very low motives, the [p. 44] result is that a nationality of a very inferior type comes into being, because in this circumstance the foundations of their creeds are rocked, their high moral traits (which had been their distinguishing features and in the presence of which no interfusion could be possible) are destroyed, their national sentiments (which formed the basis of their nationality) are benumbed. Every one of these nations is obliged to change its standards of goodness and virtue, and the new nationality which they combine to make becomes a hotch-potch of their worst morals. This kind of interfusion shatters the moral systems of nations, and a new moral system takes a long time to build. From their past traditions the nations are severed, and new traditions remain long in the making before they are confirmed. They exterminate their national types with their own hands, and a new type forms but through long waiting. Those who are involved in this precarious condition are unable to show any strength and integrity in their character. They must be mean, shallow, base-hearted, ingenerous, capricious and unprincipled. They are very like that leaf which has fallen from its tree and is wafted from place to place by the vagaries of the wind, finding no repose anywhere. Observers who have seen the intermingling and interfusion of people with different moral characteristics in Brazil, declare that this pestilence has equally undermined the noble traits of all those nations which have come under its influence. On account of this unnatural fusion, the race that is springing up [p. 45] in that country is presenting the worst specimen of humanity in every respect, mental, moral and physical.

Now any one who possesses the least insight into sociology, and who, remaining free from the influence of his political leanings, gives his opinions only on the basis of truths realised from facts, cannot assert that the cultural nationalities found to-day in India display similar moral characteristics. The difference between these nations (Hindus, Muslims, etc.) are more deep-rooted than those found between the different cultural nationalities in Europe. Here one creed differs from another as much as the East from the West. The principles of one culture are entirely different from those of another. There are wide gulfs between the systems of morals. There is little unity between the sources of tradition. Emotions and sentiments are mutually repulsive and antagonistic. The national type of one bears hardly anything common to that of another in general appearances. To try to build a composite and interfused nationality by destroying these various nationalities, only for political ends, would necessarily produce the same results to which I have referred above. Almost two centuries of British rule has already thrown these nations into the moral degeneration, continued bondage has already consumed their spirit of nobleness; their characters are vitiated; their faiths are shaken; they are almost disconnected with their past traditions; their national types are enfeebled; their [p. 46] standards of morals have gone down; their moral characteristics have lost stability. Hideous consequences of this degradation and degeneration can be noticed widely in the new generations. Under these conditions if the business of forging a new nationality is resorted to and for this purpose the cultural foundations (which are already battered) of these nations are hit hard, believe it, the entire moral structure of the country would fall to the ground, and its consequences would be most horrible.

Can Any Well-wisher of India Think of the Encouragement of Nationalism Here

It is mere puerile thinking which leads our political leaders to decide unhesitatingly that to get rid of the foreign yoke it is necessary to promote nationalism in this country, and in order to promote nationalism it is essential to build a nationality, that is, all the existing nationalities be decomposed and reshuffled into a new nationality. If these men were possessed with true insight and would be able to free themselves from the mental slavery of the west, they would think for themselves and be convinced that this way had not the salvation of India but its ruin.

First, to achieve freedom by this means would be a long and tiresome business. The destruction of cultural nationalities whose foundations are rooted in traditions of hundreds and [p. 47] thousands of years, the coming into existence of a new nationality in their place; and then the consolidation of this nationality and its getting enkindled into a nationalism—all this is not an easy affair. It would in any case must involve a long expanse of time, and if the attainment of political liberty is dependent on this thing India will have to wait for several generations yet.

Secondly, even if freedom is achieved by this method it would, as we have examined above, ultimately hurl down the whole country into the inferno of moral degeneration.

Thirdly, all those nations, which have the least consciousness of their individualities, would certainly resist this nation-making most stubbornly, and in this contention no opportunity would arise of launching a united struggle for the freedom of the country. Thus for getting deliverance from the foreign yoke it would not be even a distant approach, what to speak of its being a short-cut. If the adoption of this method is insisted upon as unreasonably as today it would not be much to say that the dream of political independence may never be realised.

For these reasons in my opinion it is very foolish on their part who aping the western nations have arrived at the conclusion that nationalism is the only successful means with which the country can be freed. I have said it frequently in the past and am repeating once again that for the liberty and political and economic progress of India a national unity and nationalism are in [p. 48] the least essential. In a country where different cultural nationalities exist, to try to mould them into one would not only be unnecessary, and wrong in principle, but considering the consequences, it would be harmful instead of being of any use. In such circumstances not unitary principles but only Federal principles can work. The permanent status and individuality of every nation should be recognised, every one of them should be allowed autonomous and sovereign control over its national “subjects”, and the different nations should agree upon a joint action only in so far as the common interests of the country were concerned. Therefore this is the only way which can guarantee safety and preservation to the individuality of all the parties in the country, and this is the only thing which can bring on to one front all the forces in the country which are struggling for political supremacy.

Notes

[p. 40] * Apparently this combination of the words “Muslim” and “Nationalism” sounds very strange. But in this world of wonders such wonderful things do happen. Among the Indian Muslims to-day we find two kinds of nationalists the “Nationalist Muslims”, namely, those who in spite of their being Muslims believe in “Indian Nationalism” and worship it, and the ‘Muslim Nationalists’, namely, those people who are little concerned with Islam and its principles and aims, but are concerned with the individuality and the political and economic interests of that nation which has come to exist by the name of “Muslim’, and they are so concerned only because of their accidence of birth in that nation. From the Islamic view-point both these types of nationalists are equally misled, for Islam enjoins faith in truth only, it does not permit any kind of nation-worshipping at all. But unfortunately both these types of nationalists are ignorant of their un-Islamic position. Particularly the second type of people are to-day vaunting loudly that they are the champions of Islam in India, although their position is hardly different from that of Hindu nationalists. A Hindu Nationalist, because he is born in the Hindu nation, endeavours to enhance the cause of those who are Hindus, and these Muslim Nationalists, because they are born in a nation which is called “Muslim”, want to exalt those who are connected with this nation. Neither of the two comes forward with a moral end or with a creed that is supported by universal principles. As the Hindu would be satisfied in his own case, so, these people would be fully satisfied if Muslims were to rule supreme—they would little-mind if they had established their government on un-Islamic foundations, and if their behaviour and procedure did not differ, in the least, from those of non-Muslims.