Nationalism in the sub-continent

WHETHER it is the rabble rouser of the campus variety or the frothy politician at public meetings, political utterances are always loaded with nationalistic fervor. One is, therefore, likely to evince interest in the growth of nationalism in related to the Indian sub-continent that suffered colonial rule from 1757 to 1947.

Historians have argued that the Indian political nation, in the modern sense, did not exist prior to the establishment of British rule. There is little disagreement that the Indian nationalism that confronted British imperialism in the 19th century and celebrated victory in 1947 was a product of colonial modernity. The challenge of nationalism in colonial India was twofold: to forge a national unity and to claim its right to self-determination.

The Indian nationalists accepted the western model of nation-state as the defining principle of their nationalism. The awareness of nation was based on a commonly shared antipathy towards colonial rule, a feeling of patriotism and an ideology rooted in a sense of pride in India's ancient traditions.

This type of thinking ignored the inner conflicts within Indian society -- which led to its division into two nation states.

The introduction of western education and political representation that were the institutional innovations of the colonial state were important catalysts of change in building nationalism. These new opportunities intersected with traditional Indian social divisions and created a new status group -- the western educated elite, which drew its members from existing privileged groups such as the Bhadrolok in Bengal, the Chitpavan Brahmans in Bombay or the Tamil Brahmans of Madras. This continued until Gandhi flung open the gates of constitutional politics to initiate the new era of mass nationalism.

India was a plural society and therefore Indian nationalism was bound to have many voices, as different groups and regions interpreted their 'nation' in various, sometimes even contradictory, ways. Indians had many identities: class, caste, religious etc.; at different historical conjunctures different identities were articulated and intersected with each other.

The 19th century invention of the Indian tradition conveniently "bypassed the long stretch of Muslim rule" to present an idealised form of Indian/Hindu tradition rooted in classical Sanskrit texts that were put to modern usage. This created an identity that was inclusive and exclusive at the same time; it united the Hindus in opposition to an alien rule, but alienated the Muslims, non-Brahmans and the untouchables.

This problematic of Indian nationalism -- referred to as Hindu "revivalism" -- is thought to be the genesis of "communalism."

Western education's role in the evolution of Indian nationalism was important because it helped educated Indians to craft their own critique of colonialism. However, the critical consciousness was unevenly shared by groups of Indians, as education itself had an extremely uneven growth. Consequently, there was uneven development of political consciousness in the various regions of India.

The three coastal presidencies of Bengal, Bombay and Madras witnessed wider expansion of education.

In Bengal higher education was monopolised by the Bhadrolok belonging mainly to the three higher castes of Brahmin, Kayastha and Baidya. The Hindus were far ahead of the Muslims and among the Hindus a significant proportion of the lower castes and untouchables remained excluded from education.

Nationalism did not grow out of material frustration alone. The differential growth of education impacted on the level of political activities in different regions. The presidencies with higher level of education were politically more articulate than the provinces. The English education helped create a critical discourse that held the colonial State under stringent scrutiny by exposing Indians to the "rationalist and democratic thoughts of the modern west." In effect, the "political modernity" emerged.

The limitations and contradictions of early Indian nationalism were markedly visible as many high-caste Hindu leaders could not totally overcome their social conservatism. Their attempts to construct nationalist ideology premised on the notion of a golden Hindu past instantly inspired a wide range of people but this also alienated some others. Indian nationalism came to be associated and defined in terms of Hindu images which certainly alienated the Muslims from this stream of nationalism.

A new consciousness developed among Muslims as well. The Muslims were defining their own self-interests in opposition to those of Hindus and colonial policies further encouraged such Hindu-Muslim schism. As the Arya Samaj started the cow protection movement the communal conflict began to acquire a mass dimension.

Large-scale communal riots rocked northern India from the 1870s, constituting certainly a new phenomenon in Indian history. The 18th century concept of Hindustan being equally shared by the Hindus and Muslims alike was gradually receding in the face of an emerging communal exclusivism in the 19th century, paving the way for a violent contest for territory in the 20th century.

The untouchables and the non-Brahman castes looked at the emerging nationalist movement as a conspiracy to establish Brahmanic hegemony over the new colonial institutions and viewed colonial government as their patron and liberator. Therefore, the political project of imagining an Indian nation from the top had to confront from the very beginning the difficult issue of diversity and difference. The colonial administration took advantage of the situation and created more impediments for the budding Indian nationalists.

The Indian Congress movement started in India as a limited elitist politics for limited reforms. It sought to forge national unity and raised the demand for peoples share in governance. From here mainstream Indian nationalistic politics began to flow. It, however, had limitations and contradictions and was thus destined to face contestation.

The contestation came from the Muslim League which claimed to be the sole political spokes person for the Indian Muslims. However, between 1940 and the arrival of the Cabinet Mission in 1946 the Muslim League or Mr. Jinnah never defined the Pakistan demand. The vagueness of the demand made it an excellent instrument for a Muslim mass mobilisation campaign in the 1940s. The primary objective of that mobilisation was to construct a Muslim national identity transcending class and regional barriers.

Muslim politics during the above period began to attract support from a cross-section of Muslim population, particularly from professionals and business groups for whom a separate state of Pakistan would mean elimination of Hindu competition. To this was added the political support of the leading Ulama, Pirs and Maulvis who lent this campaign a religious legitimacy. Muslim politics at a national level was being institutionalised. Events of 1971 leading to the creation of Bangladesh, however, proved that the religious-economic rationale of Pakistan movement did not withstand the test of time and certainly not the interests of the Muslims of Bengal.

The writer is a columnist for The Daily Star.