Nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self consciousness: it invents nations when they do not exist. ( Ernest Gellner)

In the nineteenth century  nationalism emerged in Europe as a  great and vital force  and  changed the whole course of history  by transforming its society and culture. It caused to end the universalism of the Christianity  and replaced it with nation state; it pushed religion to the private sphere of an individual’s life and shifted the loyalty of people from faith to nation. Such was the force and energy of nationalism that the European nations concentrated their energies and intellectual capacities to reconstruct their history and culture and determined their identity. As a result of cultural revivalism, the fragmented groups were integrated and shaped themselves into one nation. The process of  nation making is beautifully described by B.Anderson in his path breaking book, “The Imagined Communities”(1983). The book reveals the way in which “print Capitalism” combined the scattered groups and transformed them into a nation. However, like any other ideology, nationalism also remained fluid and changed according to the need of different societies. In Europe, in the 19^th century, it played the role of homogenizing people and uniting countries.

 For example, it helped the unification of Italy and Germany. But it also generated and strengthened colonialism and imperialism because as a result of the rivalry of European nation states, there was competition to acquire more colonies and political power.Ruling classes of these states exploited the nationalist sentiments of people and used them in expanding their overseas territories. However, when the ideology of nationalism was introduced to the colonies, the colonial people used it as a tool to fight against their masters and subsequently liberated themselves from colonial clutches.

 There is now plenty of literature on nationalism in general and particularly related to different regions and countries. Scholars are also investigating the role of nationalism in the context of Indian society. For example, nationalist historians  are proving that  historically and culturally, the Indian society was/is one irrespective of religious, ethnic, and regional differences. The Cambridge historians, in order to justify the colonial rule , are diffusing the impact of nationalism and  highlighting the regional interests which, according to them, were contrary to national interests. The Subaltern historians saw the interests of the elite classes in the nationalist movement whose interest was different from the common people .The Marxists points out how class interests were ignored by the nationalists with the result that the independence proved fruitless to the oppressed and have nots.

 G.Aloysius, belonging to the Subaltern school of history, reviews the role of nationalism in his book “Nationalism without a Nation in India”(1997). He points out the difference between European and Indian nationalism. The former was a political nationalism which emerged  against feudalism  and developed under industrialism when bourgeois classes undermined the influence of feudals and liberated serfs from their bondage. Therefore, European nationalism was related to industrialization and democracy while Indian nationalism, on the contrary ,was cultural in origin. It evolved by reviving the past culture and traditions. This cultural nationalism in the Indian context meant the supremacy of Brahmanism in which masses were culturally excluded but territorially included. It was in the interest of the upper castes to give equal status  to the lower castes, therefore, in India, there was no conflict between bourgeois and the feudals, on the other hand, both joined with each other for common interest and kept the lower castes aloof from politics. This clearly shows the difference between political and cultural nationalism: political nationalism was the champion of democracy, equality of citizens, mobility of  classes, choice of professions, right of education, religion, ownership of land,  share in government, and freedom in public space. Contrary to it, cultural nationalism in India denied all political, religious, and educational rights to the untouchables  and excluded them from all privileges which a citizen enjoys in a democratic society.

 He critically examines Nehru’s “Discovery of India” which in his opinion, glorifies the Brahmanic traditions of the past.  Nehru romanticized the Indian village, family, and the continuity of the Indian history which means justification of the caste system and the superior role of the Brahmans. He highly admires the Gupta period which strengthened the Varana (colour) and the Brahmanism. That is why it is called by the traditional historians  the Golden period of Indian history. Nehru also downgrades the Muslim rule on the basis that they did not bring any high culture and therefore failed to change Indian society. On the other hand, he praises the British rule which, in his opinion, initiated the process of modernization in India. This version of history was challenged by the scholars of the lower castes  such as Jotiba Phuley, Ramaswamy Naicker, Ambedker, and Swami Achchitanand , who were against Vedas, Upnishads, Puranas, and Itihasas. They termed Brahmanism  as poison to the lower castes. Opposing Ramrajiya, which was nothing but to re-establish and rejuvenate Brahmanism, they  struggled to popularize Ravan Rajiya and Bali Rajiya which suited to the centuries old oppresses castes. Also opposing the Aryan period, they glorified the pre-Aryan society which was free from caste and colour discrimination.

 Beside the lower castes, there was also problem for the Muslim how to reconcile with the Brahminical past and accept the concept of Ramrajiya. On  the Muslim reaction of the Indian cultural nationalism, the author writes: “The Muslim middle class…struggled for a long time without working out an alternate vision for themselves. Their demand all along had been political nationalist in nature, demanding acceptance and encouragement of their emergence as much as the other lower castes, yet they were participating in the political activities of the cultural nationalists, struggling within them for a fair share of  social and political power. However, when it became clear that integration within the nation-state was preconditioned by the acceptance of peripheral position within the nation they began their search for greener pasture using their rich religious traditions, myths and memories.”

 Aloysius, then points out  how with the emergence of Gandhi, the movement of upper castes  found the most active and ardent supporter. He cleverly used religious symbols and religious sentiments to uphold the supremacy of the Brahmanism and diffused the influence of  anti Brahminical movements by launching three pronged activities: cow protection, usurping the untouchable movement, and taking charge of the  Khilafat Tahrik. By these act, he protected the upper caste by reviving the Brahminical symbols, discrediting the leadership of the untouchables and assumed the leadership to improve their condition within the framework of religion; and created a sense of religious identity among the Muslim community by promoting the leadership of the ulema respectively.However, he was even then afraid that “Untouchable hooligans will make common cause with Muslim hooligans and kill caste Hindus.” The religious nationalism of Gandhi changed Indian national struggle as Aloysius writes: “Since Khilafat and Non-Cooperation vertical mobilization of Hindu and Muslim communities became the dominant discourse of nationalism, submerging the struggling discourse of social mobility, education, diversification of occupation by the lower castes.”

 Gandhi used the masses to achieve his end but not to create political or social consciousness among them. Tagore failed to understand that how charkha could bring any change in the life of the people. Aloysius writes: “the very meaninglessness of the activity had the potentiality to yield a maximum catch and generate enough euphoria without bringing in any issue vital to the life struggle of the masses. Khaddar and Charkha succeeded in mobilizing the  peasants to the extent that they were given something to be occupied with, which did not threaten the status quo but helped to contain the antagonism between communities. The masses were expected to weave their way to Swaraj while the upper classes played politics.”

 Gandhi kept the masses away from active politics. He never made any direct contact with people but always through the local leadership which was consisted of the upper castes by doing this he strengthened their role in politics and social life of the region. His policy of non-violence shows that “The endemic  tendency of  the masses and the perennial preaching of non-violence both reveal the fact that the masses had already been driven to a situation in which violence had become inevitable  for even a marginal amelioration of conditions. Hence the need for sacralizing non-violence  and situating it at the heart of the so-called Hindu Indian tradition.”

 Gandhi’s concept of Ramrajiya and his romanticizing the Brahminical Indian past  had no place for the lower castes. He believed in vernasharma, and trusteeship of the upper castes which  was against the principal of equality, merit, and mobility of castes. That’s why Ambedkar, the leader of the untouchables vehemently opposed this type of Gandhian vision and says, “Speaking for the servile classes I have no doubt that what they expect to happen in a sovereign and free India is a complete destruction of Brahmanism as a philosophy of life and as social order. If I may say so, the servile classes do not care for social amelioration. The want and poverty which has been their lot is nothing to them compared to the insult and indignity which they have to bear as a result of vicious social order.” Gandhi wanted to revive, uphold and preserve the same social order in the name of Indian nationalism.

 In the end of the struggle Gandhi succeeded while Ambedkar failed. India became independent with the help of  nationalism but remains without a nation. This is how Alosius concludes.

 ( For further reading on the Indian Nationalism, see: Anil Seal, ( 1968 ) The Emergence of Indian Nationalism; Partha Chatterjee (1984 ), Gandhi and the critique of Civil Society; (1986 ) Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World;  (1994 ), The Nation and its Fragments.)