Nation and Nationalism (South Asian Perspective)
© Anup Mukherjee i3pep.org
Part 1 (this page) Part 2
The concept of ‘Nation’ for South Asia is an interesting concept to explore. In the Indian Subcontinent, the concept of Bharatvarsha (land of the Bharata, the legendary ruler) had existed at a theoretical level since long time. In some ways it can be said to be a form of concept of ‘nation’ that forms the basis for nationhood in modern times. However this was a ‘meta’ concept and somewhat backed by Vedic religion and the concept of an ‘universal ruler’ who was powerful enough to rule over the ‘world’. A related concept was the Aswamedha Yajna (horse sacrifice). In this the Powerful ruler would perform this huge religious ceremony, and the horse was left on its own, and whereever the horse went, the ruler’s army would follow it and conqer those lands for the king. Now, one can well imagine to what distance could such horses go. The big empires that were formed in South Asia like those of the Mauryas and Guptas were not formed by any such ceremonies, but by sheer political and military will. However the concept persisted through time.
If we go through History, at no occasion when India was invaded from north west has there been an identity of oneness that would have made different rulers come together to defend something that can be called a shared identity.
Usually language forms the most “natural” basis of nationality. In India there have been so many linguistic divisions and the existence of so many kingdoms with parochial & local identities that it really becomes difficult to say that nationality would have existed in fact. The continuous mutually destructive warfare among the various kingdoms hardly makes case for a “nation". While political correctness would let us think that nationality of “India” emerged with advent of Aryan power in India, my own understanding is that yes, nationality did emerge particularly in the later Vedic period, but that was a fragmented nationality (a Magadhan identity, an Avanti identity etc). Moreover with the endurance of civilisation or rather the continuity of civilisation, the nationality of “India” that we have today is a vastly different and much elaborated and sophisticated concept than that could have been there 2500 years back.
Even at the risk of political incorrectness, I can say that India as a “nation” had not really emerged even during the 1857. The reason being that there had been too many vast expanse of India that did not identify itself with the rebellion and the educated class in Bengal (and elsewhere) even condemned the uprising. Writers of that time like Bhartendu Harshchandra (the most important exponent of Hindi language) would consider the British rule as that of the benefactors. The educated class continued to see the British as benefactors, and joining the Civil Services continued to be a cherished goal for those who could afford a British Education for their wards. The concept of “drain of wealth” had not emerged at that time.
This is despite the fact that during the 18th and early 19th century, there continued to be many rebellions against the British, the most famous of them was the 1857. This is perhaps because 1857 in some ways meant forging together of a vaster expanse of rulers and subject than the others. Most of these other rebellions were revolt of dispossesed rulers (eg. revolt by Rani of Kittur, revolt of Velu Thampi etc), many Tribal revolts, the Agrarian revolts (Indigo revolt being the most prominent that happened in 1850s), and even mutinies in some of the Army units by the Indian soldiers. Even in 1857, one can say that it was circumstances that led to forging together of the various forces. Even till late before the 1857 revolt for example, the most famous participants like Rani Lakshmi Bai of Jhansi would wait for the order of the Commissioner of Sagar (Central Province) to recognise her adopted son as the legitimate ruler. Nana Sahib would join the revolt on the grievance of the British stopping his pension. And the emmisaries of (by then defunct) Mughal ruler Bahadur Shah would report to the British Resident till the very end, till the revolting sepoys and others foisted him as the visible symbol of unifying authority. Many other rulers of various provinces like Gwalior, and those of the Rajputana (Rajasthan) etc would give full support to the British with men and material.
The only development in this case was that the rulers, the population, and the sepoys of a wider area had come together to fight an identified foe. In such a case, it is really difficult to judge, what shape would have the country taken, if the revolt had succeeded.
The first issue on which all parts of India participated as a body was the partition of Bengal. The partition was protested against throughout the country. That was perhaps the first time that the geographic expression (of the territorial expanse of India) took the shape of a “nation". It is ironical that people like Churchill and Jinnah even a few decades later would still consider India to be a “geographic expression". More unfortunate was the unhistorical partition of the country that could have existed as a single nation. I say unhistorical, because the concept of Pakistan had neither emerged or developed as a nation till the very end, and perhaps it could be said to be a result of elite-agreement where the British ruling class preferred to fragment the Indian identity. I say this, because even the Pakistani nation as expounded by Jinnah himself was not conceded to him, and he even later on remarked that he had got a ‘moth eaten’ Pakistan. Moreover the events of 1971 conclusively proves the unhistorical partition that was based on the identity of religion. The creation of Bangladesh proves that religion itself is not a strong enough criteria to keep a nation together.
While Europe saw the emergence of “nation-states” in16th-17th century. India of today (if we discount the meta concept of India that stretched from current Afghanistan to that of Burma) emerged as a “nation-state” in 1947. The best part of this nationhood, is absence of any single criteria (like language in European countries) of identification. Indian nation that we today transcends all barriers or the limiting effects of language, religion, caste, region and other differentiations. That makes it a unique case that is not found in other parts of the world. For example, even in Malaysia, citizen of Chinese origin don’t have the full rights (they cannot hold govt offices). Many other nation-states like Yugoslavia collapsed. In the twentieth century in other parts of the world (like South African Apartheid) we find emergence of dogmatic citizenship that would treat certain sections of society as second-class. We had anti-semetism in Europe in the first half of 20th cen. Similar things are implemented off and on in different parts of the world in other forms eg. even US wont allow its first generation naturalised citizens to hold high offices of decision making in the state apparatus. We know how Uighurs (Muslims in the province of Sikiang) are treated in China.
However it is not just the landmass that has created the nation. Only geography does not decide “Nation". It takes something more than mere geography to bring together a nation. To sustain it as a state is even more difficult. (the famous four criterias of a state - land, people, government, and sovereignty). Nationality is feeling of oneness that binds together people on the various grounds of culture, language, and even religion. But this is not all. There has to be a political awareness of being a single entity. That feeling of oneness is essential. In India this thing did not happen until 1905, when the modern political forms had developed enough awareness among the people that they could think of the condition of their brethern in the distant parts of the country.
To say that there was nationality during the ancient times merely because a few rulers could forge together a vast empire and could gather revenue from distant lands would be a misnomer. The regimes of Mauryas, of Guptas, of Mughals were “empires". There is a distinct categorical analytical framework when we analyse these issues. Had there been no distinction, there wouldn’t have been any need for any differentiation at the epistomological or the empirical grounds. Empires are separated from Nations.
Empires are rather a loosely held categories who hold their distinct regional identities that is separate from any artificial political oneness. It is perhaps because of this that the empires are not long-lasting. Moreover there is no ideology of togetherness to bind the people for the empire. The reasons behind creation of an empire might be varied. If we analyse the structure of empire in different parts of the world, we would find that direct central control on the various regions of such empires had their limitations. Direct central control was generally limited - meaning the areas where directly appointed officials would have their say had its limitations. The vast regions were generally ruled through chain of allegiance owning feudatories. These feudatories had great amount of autonomy in their sphere of control. These feudatories had their independent existence and not ‘appointed’ by their overlord (this was particularly true for India).
Part 1 (this page) Part 2