04-10-2004, 08:26 PM
No one is more competent to answer this question than James Bryce. It was just such a question he
had to consider in discussing the vitality of the Holy Roman Empire as contrasted with the Roman
Empire. If any Empire can be said to have succeeded in bringing about political unity among its
diverse subjects it was the Roman Empire. Paraphrasing for the sake of brevity the language of
Bryce :âThe gradual extension of Roman citizenship through the founding of colonies, first
throughout Italy and then in the provinces, the working of the equalized and equalizing Roman
Law, the even pressure of the government on all subjects, the movements of population, caused by
commerce and the slave traffic, were steadily assimilating the various peoples. Emperors, who were
for the most part natives of the provinces, cared little to cherish Italy or even after the days of the
Antonines, to conciliate Rome. It was their policy to keep open for every subject a career by whose
freedom they had themselves risen to greatness. Annihilating distinctions of legal status among
freemen, it completed the work, which trade and literature and toleration to all beliefs but one were
already performing. No quarrel of race or religions disturbed that calm, for all national distinctions
were becoming merged in the idea of a common Empire.
This unity produced by the Roman Empire was only a political unity. How long did this political
unity last ? In the words of Bryce:
"Scarcely had these slowly working influences brought about this unity, when other influences
began to threaten it. New foes assailed the frontiers ; while the loosening of the structure within
was shown by the long struggles for power which followed the death or deposition of each
successive emperor. In the period of anarchy after the fall of Valerian, generals were raised by their
armies in every part of the Empire, and ruled great provinces as monarchs apart, owning no
allegiance to the possessor of the capital. The breaking-up of the western half of the Empire into
separate kingdoms might have been anticipated by two hundred years, had there not arisen in
Diocletian a prince active and skilful enough to bind up the fragments before they had lost all
cohesion, meeting altered conditions by new remedies. The policy he adopted by dividing and
localizing authority recognized the fact that the weakened heart could no longer make its pulsations
fell to the body's extremities. He parcelled out the supreme power among four monarchs, ruling as
joint emperors in four capitals, and then sought to give it a fictitious strength by surrounding it with
an oriental pomp which his earlier predecessors would have scorned. . . . The prerogative of Rome
was menaced by the -rivalry of Nicomedia, and the nearer greatness of Milan. "
It is, therefore, evident that political unity was not enough to give permanence and stability to the
Roman Empire and as Bryce points out that " the breaking-up of the western half (of the Roman
Empire) into separate kingdoms might have been anticipated by two hundred years, had the
barbarian tribes on the border been bolder, or had there not arisen in Diocletian a prince active and
skilful enough to bind up the fragments before they had lost all cohesion, meeting altered
conditions by new remedies ". But the fact is that the Roman Empire which was tottering and
breaking into bits and whose political unity was not enough to bind it together did last for several
hundred years as one cohesive unit after it became the Holy Roman Empire. As Prof. Marvin points
out 34[f.34] :
" The unity of the Roman Empire was mainly political and military. It lasted for between four and
Five hundred years. The unity which supervened in the Catholic Church was religious and moral
and endured for a thousand years. "
The question is what made the Holy Roman Empire more stable than the Roman Empire could ever
hope to be ? According to Bryce it was a common religion in the shape of Christianity and a
common religious organization in the shape of the Christian Church which supplied the cement to
the Holy Roman Empire and which was wanting in the Roman Empire. It was this cement which
gave to the people of the Empire a moral and social unity and made them see such unity expressed
and realized under a single government.
Speaking of the unifying effect of Christianity as a common religion Bryce says:
" It is on religion that the in most and deepest life of a nation rests. Because Divinity was divided,
humanity had been divided, likewise ; the doctrine of the unity of God now enforced the unity of
man, who had been created in His image. The first lesson of Christianity was love, a love that was
to join in one body those whom suspicion and prejudice and pride of race had hitherto kept apart.
There was thus formed by the new religion a community of the faithful, a Holy Empire, designed to
gather all men into its bosom, and standing opposed to the manifold polytheisms of the older world,
exactly as the universal sway of the Caesars was contrasted with the innumerable kingdoms and
city republics that had gone before it . . . . " 35[f.35]
If what Bryce has said regarding the instability of the Roman Empire and the comparatively greater
stability of its successor, the Holy Roman Empire, has any lesson for India and if the reasoning of
Bryce that the Roman Empire was unstable because it had nothing more than political unity to rely
on, and that the Holy Roman Empire was more stable, because it rested on the secure foundation of
moral and social unity, produced by the possession of a common faith, is valid reasoning and
embodies human experience, then it is obvious that there can be no possibility of a union between
Hindus and Muslims. The cementing force of a common religion is wanting. From a spiritual point
of view, Hindus and Musalmans are not merely two classes or two sects such as Protestants and
Catholics or Shaivas and Vaishnavas. They are two distinct species. In this view, neither the Hindu
nor .the Muslim can be expected to recognize that humanity is an essential quality present in them
both, and that they are not many but one and that the differences between them are no more than
accidents. For them Divinity is divided and with the division of Divinity their humanity is divided
and with the division of humanity they must remain divided. There is nothing to bring them in one
bosom.
Without social union, political unity is difficult to be achieved. If achieved, it would be as
precarious as a summer sapling, liable to be uprooted by the gust of a hostile wind. With mere
political unity, India may be a State. But to be a State is not to be a nation and a State, which is not
a nation, has small prospects of survival in the struggle for existence. This is especially true where
nationalismâthe most dynamic force of modern timesâis seeking everywhere to free itself by the
destruction and disruption of all mixed states. The danger to a mixed and composite state, therefore,
lies not so much in external aggression as in the internal resurgence of nationalities which are
fragmented, entrapped, suppressed and held against their will. Those who oppose Pakistan should
not only bear this danger in mind but should also realize that this attempt on the part of suppressed
nationalities to disrupt a mixed state and to found a separate home for themselves, instead of being
condemned, finds ethical justification from the principle of self-determination.
had to consider in discussing the vitality of the Holy Roman Empire as contrasted with the Roman
Empire. If any Empire can be said to have succeeded in bringing about political unity among its
diverse subjects it was the Roman Empire. Paraphrasing for the sake of brevity the language of
Bryce :âThe gradual extension of Roman citizenship through the founding of colonies, first
throughout Italy and then in the provinces, the working of the equalized and equalizing Roman
Law, the even pressure of the government on all subjects, the movements of population, caused by
commerce and the slave traffic, were steadily assimilating the various peoples. Emperors, who were
for the most part natives of the provinces, cared little to cherish Italy or even after the days of the
Antonines, to conciliate Rome. It was their policy to keep open for every subject a career by whose
freedom they had themselves risen to greatness. Annihilating distinctions of legal status among
freemen, it completed the work, which trade and literature and toleration to all beliefs but one were
already performing. No quarrel of race or religions disturbed that calm, for all national distinctions
were becoming merged in the idea of a common Empire.
This unity produced by the Roman Empire was only a political unity. How long did this political
unity last ? In the words of Bryce:
"Scarcely had these slowly working influences brought about this unity, when other influences
began to threaten it. New foes assailed the frontiers ; while the loosening of the structure within
was shown by the long struggles for power which followed the death or deposition of each
successive emperor. In the period of anarchy after the fall of Valerian, generals were raised by their
armies in every part of the Empire, and ruled great provinces as monarchs apart, owning no
allegiance to the possessor of the capital. The breaking-up of the western half of the Empire into
separate kingdoms might have been anticipated by two hundred years, had there not arisen in
Diocletian a prince active and skilful enough to bind up the fragments before they had lost all
cohesion, meeting altered conditions by new remedies. The policy he adopted by dividing and
localizing authority recognized the fact that the weakened heart could no longer make its pulsations
fell to the body's extremities. He parcelled out the supreme power among four monarchs, ruling as
joint emperors in four capitals, and then sought to give it a fictitious strength by surrounding it with
an oriental pomp which his earlier predecessors would have scorned. . . . The prerogative of Rome
was menaced by the -rivalry of Nicomedia, and the nearer greatness of Milan. "
It is, therefore, evident that political unity was not enough to give permanence and stability to the
Roman Empire and as Bryce points out that " the breaking-up of the western half (of the Roman
Empire) into separate kingdoms might have been anticipated by two hundred years, had the
barbarian tribes on the border been bolder, or had there not arisen in Diocletian a prince active and
skilful enough to bind up the fragments before they had lost all cohesion, meeting altered
conditions by new remedies ". But the fact is that the Roman Empire which was tottering and
breaking into bits and whose political unity was not enough to bind it together did last for several
hundred years as one cohesive unit after it became the Holy Roman Empire. As Prof. Marvin points
out 34[f.34] :
" The unity of the Roman Empire was mainly political and military. It lasted for between four and
Five hundred years. The unity which supervened in the Catholic Church was religious and moral
and endured for a thousand years. "
The question is what made the Holy Roman Empire more stable than the Roman Empire could ever
hope to be ? According to Bryce it was a common religion in the shape of Christianity and a
common religious organization in the shape of the Christian Church which supplied the cement to
the Holy Roman Empire and which was wanting in the Roman Empire. It was this cement which
gave to the people of the Empire a moral and social unity and made them see such unity expressed
and realized under a single government.
Speaking of the unifying effect of Christianity as a common religion Bryce says:
" It is on religion that the in most and deepest life of a nation rests. Because Divinity was divided,
humanity had been divided, likewise ; the doctrine of the unity of God now enforced the unity of
man, who had been created in His image. The first lesson of Christianity was love, a love that was
to join in one body those whom suspicion and prejudice and pride of race had hitherto kept apart.
There was thus formed by the new religion a community of the faithful, a Holy Empire, designed to
gather all men into its bosom, and standing opposed to the manifold polytheisms of the older world,
exactly as the universal sway of the Caesars was contrasted with the innumerable kingdoms and
city republics that had gone before it . . . . " 35[f.35]
If what Bryce has said regarding the instability of the Roman Empire and the comparatively greater
stability of its successor, the Holy Roman Empire, has any lesson for India and if the reasoning of
Bryce that the Roman Empire was unstable because it had nothing more than political unity to rely
on, and that the Holy Roman Empire was more stable, because it rested on the secure foundation of
moral and social unity, produced by the possession of a common faith, is valid reasoning and
embodies human experience, then it is obvious that there can be no possibility of a union between
Hindus and Muslims. The cementing force of a common religion is wanting. From a spiritual point
of view, Hindus and Musalmans are not merely two classes or two sects such as Protestants and
Catholics or Shaivas and Vaishnavas. They are two distinct species. In this view, neither the Hindu
nor .the Muslim can be expected to recognize that humanity is an essential quality present in them
both, and that they are not many but one and that the differences between them are no more than
accidents. For them Divinity is divided and with the division of Divinity their humanity is divided
and with the division of humanity they must remain divided. There is nothing to bring them in one
bosom.
Without social union, political unity is difficult to be achieved. If achieved, it would be as
precarious as a summer sapling, liable to be uprooted by the gust of a hostile wind. With mere
political unity, India may be a State. But to be a State is not to be a nation and a State, which is not
a nation, has small prospects of survival in the struggle for existence. This is especially true where
nationalismâthe most dynamic force of modern timesâis seeking everywhere to free itself by the
destruction and disruption of all mixed states. The danger to a mixed and composite state, therefore,
lies not so much in external aggression as in the internal resurgence of nationalities which are
fragmented, entrapped, suppressed and held against their will. Those who oppose Pakistan should
not only bear this danger in mind but should also realize that this attempt on the part of suppressed
nationalities to disrupt a mixed state and to found a separate home for themselves, instead of being
condemned, finds ethical justification from the principle of self-determination.