Nationalism without a Nation in India
John Hickman. Contemporary South Asia. Abingdon: Mar 2000. Vol. 9,
Iss. 1; pg. 77, 2 pgs
What explains the failure of Indian nationalism to deliver an Indian
national identity? Given the recent electoral triumphs of the Hindu
communal nationalist BJP and allied parties, efforts to provide a
cogent answer to this question have assumed a new importance.
India's extraordinary social diversity continues to find expression
in an extraordinary diversity of political movements. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>In the absence
of the political symbols and values that comprise a single national
identity, the resulting political conflicts are probably more
intense and difficult to resolve. What went wrong?</span> Although it is
written in the often `gummy' language of post-modernism, this work
by G: Aloysius offers an interesting answer derived from an analysis
that owes much to the theoretical work of Ernest Gellner and
Benedict Anderson on nationalism. Aloysius employs what he describes
as the historical sociological method to explore and ultimately
extract meaning from the ambiguous terminology used in the
ideological articulation of Indian nationalism. Basic to this
analysis is a definition of the nation as a modern form of society
characterised by a homogeneous culture or an `equitable' political
community which `precedes nationalism at least logically if not
historically' (pp 11-12). The nation is thus understood to be more
real than any nationalism(s) used to describe it or legitimate the
authority of its government.
Aloysius begins his investigation in the century before British
rule, a period in which the dominant Brahminic hierarchy and varna
ideology were subject to widespread and increasing contestation
inside and outside the community of Hindu believers. British
colonial rule turned back these challenges by upholding caste
segregation, guaranteeing the property rights of largely upper caste
rural elites, permitting a near monopolisation of modern English
educational opportunities by Brahmins, and recruiting much of the
bureaucratic personnel of the colonial state from among the upper
castes. `Viewed in the context of the slow erosion of pre-colonial
social structure that had been taking place, the impact of
colonialism was to arrest the social progress, economic
diversification and emergence of culture-based polities and revert
to an environment and climate of pan-Indian Brahminical feudal
consolidation ...' (p 51). Immediately before and after
independence, these upper caste elites legitimated their power with
an ideology that fused both religious and secular elements, and at
least partially masked their caste and class hegemony. Indian
nationalism is thus indicted as a device employed to secure
succession to state power from the British by the upper caste elites
who had been their collaborators in colonial rule, a device that was
also employed to overwhelm various regional nationalisms and
populist movements, which might have contested that succession to
state power.
In the penultimate chapter of the book, the focus shifts to M.K.
Gandhi. After offering obligatory praise for Gandhi as person and
politician, the author presents a harsh appraisal of Gandhian
ideology and political practice for using religion in the service of
upper caste interests. The religious language used in Gandhian
discourse `meant religion for the lower caste masses and politics
for the upper caste nationalists' (p 182). Exploiting Cow Protection
and the Khilafat as issues not only resulted in the `vertical
mobilization of Hindu and Muslim communities' but also `submerging
the struggling discourse of social mobility, education,
diversification of occupation for the lower castes' (p 185).
Partition and even deeper social division within the northern states
of independent India were the consequences of these efforts.
<span style='color:red'>The author concludes that Indian nationalism delivered a state but
not a nation because it was simply the ideological vehicle for upper
caste hegemony. By implication, this basic failure would explain the
success of a contemporary Hindu communal nationalism less
adulterated by egalitarian hypocrisies and of the multiple regional
nationalisms that challenge the unity and territorial integrity of
India.</span>
The reader should be cautioned that Aloysius repeatedly makes the
heroic assumption that members of social groups share common
consciousness. Shared religion, language, caste, or class are all
assumed to generate not only consciousness of group identity but
also agreement about common interests.
[Author Affiliation]
John Hickman
Berry College, USA
=========
Nationalism without a Nation in India (by G. Aloysius) Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1998 ISBN 0-19-564653-3
John Hickman. Contemporary South Asia. Abingdon: Mar 2000. Vol. 9,
Iss. 1; pg. 77, 2 pgs
What explains the failure of Indian nationalism to deliver an Indian
national identity? Given the recent electoral triumphs of the Hindu
communal nationalist BJP and allied parties, efforts to provide a
cogent answer to this question have assumed a new importance.
India's extraordinary social diversity continues to find expression
in an extraordinary diversity of political movements. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>In the absence
of the political symbols and values that comprise a single national
identity, the resulting political conflicts are probably more
intense and difficult to resolve. What went wrong?</span> Although it is
written in the often `gummy' language of post-modernism, this work
by G: Aloysius offers an interesting answer derived from an analysis
that owes much to the theoretical work of Ernest Gellner and
Benedict Anderson on nationalism. Aloysius employs what he describes
as the historical sociological method to explore and ultimately
extract meaning from the ambiguous terminology used in the
ideological articulation of Indian nationalism. Basic to this
analysis is a definition of the nation as a modern form of society
characterised by a homogeneous culture or an `equitable' political
community which `precedes nationalism at least logically if not
historically' (pp 11-12). The nation is thus understood to be more
real than any nationalism(s) used to describe it or legitimate the
authority of its government.
Aloysius begins his investigation in the century before British
rule, a period in which the dominant Brahminic hierarchy and varna
ideology were subject to widespread and increasing contestation
inside and outside the community of Hindu believers. British
colonial rule turned back these challenges by upholding caste
segregation, guaranteeing the property rights of largely upper caste
rural elites, permitting a near monopolisation of modern English
educational opportunities by Brahmins, and recruiting much of the
bureaucratic personnel of the colonial state from among the upper
castes. `Viewed in the context of the slow erosion of pre-colonial
social structure that had been taking place, the impact of
colonialism was to arrest the social progress, economic
diversification and emergence of culture-based polities and revert
to an environment and climate of pan-Indian Brahminical feudal
consolidation ...' (p 51). Immediately before and after
independence, these upper caste elites legitimated their power with
an ideology that fused both religious and secular elements, and at
least partially masked their caste and class hegemony. Indian
nationalism is thus indicted as a device employed to secure
succession to state power from the British by the upper caste elites
who had been their collaborators in colonial rule, a device that was
also employed to overwhelm various regional nationalisms and
populist movements, which might have contested that succession to
state power.
In the penultimate chapter of the book, the focus shifts to M.K.
Gandhi. After offering obligatory praise for Gandhi as person and
politician, the author presents a harsh appraisal of Gandhian
ideology and political practice for using religion in the service of
upper caste interests. The religious language used in Gandhian
discourse `meant religion for the lower caste masses and politics
for the upper caste nationalists' (p 182). Exploiting Cow Protection
and the Khilafat as issues not only resulted in the `vertical
mobilization of Hindu and Muslim communities' but also `submerging
the struggling discourse of social mobility, education,
diversification of occupation for the lower castes' (p 185).
Partition and even deeper social division within the northern states
of independent India were the consequences of these efforts.
<span style='color:red'>The author concludes that Indian nationalism delivered a state but
not a nation because it was simply the ideological vehicle for upper
caste hegemony. By implication, this basic failure would explain the
success of a contemporary Hindu communal nationalism less
adulterated by egalitarian hypocrisies and of the multiple regional
nationalisms that challenge the unity and territorial integrity of
India.</span>
The reader should be cautioned that Aloysius repeatedly makes the
heroic assumption that members of social groups share common
consciousness. Shared religion, language, caste, or class are all
assumed to generate not only consciousness of group identity but
also agreement about common interests.
[Author Affiliation]
John Hickman
Berry College, USA
=========
Nationalism without a Nation in India (by G. Aloysius) Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1998 ISBN 0-19-564653-3