# The Calcutta Review/Series 3/Volume 16/Number 3/Formation of Indian Nationality

ON THE FORMATION OF INDIAN NATIONALITY
It is a common impression in the outside world that India is inhabited by peoples of fundamentally different racial stocks, and is a congery of peoples speaking different languages and traditions; hence it is only a geographical expression and has no basis for the foundation of a nationality. Yet the Indian movement for liberation is termed by the Indians themselves as the National Movement, and everybody hailing from the geographical boundary of present-day India calls himself an Indian!
So, the question turns up, is India a nation?—If not, is there any basis to form an Indian nationality? The theme of this paper is to discuss the problem of the Indian nationality; but before going into the subject-matter of the theme, we shall first take up the question, what is meant by a ‘nation’?
There have been various definitions given to this term, both from the side of the political scientist and that of the social scientist. Yet an universal definite explanation is not yet arrived at. The idea of nationality is so elusive that it cannot be expressed in a formula. In general there is a juristic definition that the population of a state is a nation, i.e., the population of a given geographical area having a government of its own is a nation. Here the word “nation” is taken as synonymous with a state and the people of the state. This is the definition common in France, English-speaking countries and also in Germany. The French lexicographer Mozin expresses the idea of nationality in a short definition that a nation is “the totality of all persons who are born in the same land or are naturalized there and live under the same government.” But this juristical definition is neither illuminating nor scientific. Against it another attempt at a scientific definition both from the Marxists ​and other savants have been tried. As early as 1848-49 Carl Marx who formerly defined the word ‘nation’ in its old meaning that it is equal to the state and the people of the state, expressed that “the nation is formed on a certain natural basis (territory, nature of land, climate, racial connection) adapted to a group of men of same tradition, language and same common characters.” Of course Marx and Engels never left any clear scientific definition of the term. Then came the political scientist I. C. Bluntschli who said that a nation is the body in which the community of intellect, feeling and race have become hereditary and which apart from the state union, feels itself united in the community of cultural relations in the matter of language, custom and culture, and differentiates from others as such.
Thus from a pure juristic standpoint the idea of nation began to be looked from a cultural standpoint. Then arose a host of prominent Marxist writers who improving upon Marx tried to arrive at a scientific formula, viz., Otto Paner, who sees the basis of a nation in a certain “natural union,” a community of blood and descent within a certain geographical area, out of which under common conditions of life and fate, a sort of community of fate and character have developed. According to his explanation, a nation is a community of character grown out of community of fate. Bauer's characteristic of a nation agrees with the conception of Marx-Engel; but Kautsky criticises it by saying that the community of language is the binding factor of a nation, as by changing one’s language one changes his nationality and not through change of character! On the other hand, Heinrich Cunow in criticising the other Marxists sums up the definition thus : a nation is based on a community of character and language.
Then comes the historian Ramsay Muir who says that the word “nationality” is difficult to define and that a nation is not the same thing as a race or a state. He says the essence of a nationality is a sentiment, “in the last ​resort we can only say that a nation is a nation because its members passionately and unanimously believe it to be so. But they can only believe it to be so if there exist among them real and strong affinities.”
This definition is not comprehensive though it only vaguely echoes the German definition which points out what these real and strong affinities are.
Lastly comes the psychologist M’Dougall who says, “a nation is a people or population enjoying some degree of political independence and possessed of a national mind and character and therefore capable of national deliberation and volition.” To him “nationhood is a psychological conception.” Regarding the definition of “national mind” he says, it is “a certain degree of mental homogeneity of the group. The homogeneity essential to a nation may be one of two kinds; native or acquired.” As regards national character, he says, among the conditions essential to its formation are “homogeneity” which is a prime condition and the “racial qualities” which influence national character. Here it is clear M’Dougall pinned his definition on psychological basis, but beyond which there are sociological factors. The sociological factors are the primary bases of nationhood and the psychological conditions are the result of the former combination. From his psychological definition we learn that a certain degree of mental homogeneity, native or acquired, is necessary to the formation of nationality. His homogeneity is the “community of character” of Bauer. Thus we see that the definitions of the English savants are covered by the definitions advanced by Bauer Cunow.
Without going into detailed discussion it is to be mentioned here that it is held as certain that a nation is not based on racialism. Racial homogeneity does not exist anywhere in the world and a people and a nation are not defined by the homogeneity of skull and nasal indices or other somatic characteristics. Geographical unity is not essential to ​nationhood. Unity of language is a great binding force. It means a common literature, a common vehicle to interpret thought and transmit the ideas, traditions, folk-lore, etc. It is one of the most important factors to build up a nation, yet a common language has not prevented its members to form separate nationalities. Unity of religion is also a factor, more so in old days, yet not a necessary factor in modern time. A common historical fate and development are potent factors but they must be coupled with other affinities if possible. A community of economic interest within the jurisdiction of other affinities is an important factor. A certain degree of mental homogeneity, native or acquired, is necessary.
Thus it is seen that the definition of nationality can’t be pinned down to a particular factor or to an universal definition. Leaving aside the legal definition of the term as applied by the political scientists and jurists, we see that various factors go to build up a nation, it is not scientific when one tries to arrive at a simple formula for the definition. The scientific definition of the same cannot do away with any of the factors mentioned above. Rather it seems that the factors necessary for the building of nationality are to be found covered by the combined definitions of Bauer and Cunow that a nation is based on the community of language and community of character grown out of the community of fate. But where the former two factors do not unite, is there no possibility to form a nation? We shall later see about it.
Thus so far for theoretical discussion on the definition; now let us apply it in India. It is said that India contains different racial elements within herself. This fact cannot be denied, but not in the sense as put by Herbert Risley for different biotypes are more or less common everywhere. The provinces or rather the linguistic areas are not shut up in water-tight compartments regarding the biotypes. By making a biometric analysis of Risley’s data it is to be seen that the dolichoid-mesorrhins (longskulled-middle form ​of nosed type) are the common element everywhere. The dolichoid-leptorrhin element (long-skulled-long-nosed type) which is in majority among the Sikh-Jats is to be traced down to Behar Kahars and Bengal Kaibartas!
Thus one cannot say that every language group inhabitating certain province contains a population with particular physical type and that type is strange elsewhere. Different physical types do exist in India as anywhere else in the world, yet elsewhere they do not form barriers for the formation of nationality. Therefore the reiterated argument of the imperialist critics that on account of difference of physical type India cannot form a nation is to be dismissed as unscientific. But India is on the other hand an ethnic unit. That is a bond for a common nationality.
Then comes the question of language. Primarily, India is divided into two language groups : Aryan and the Dravidian one. Of course in the course of time these two language groups have been broken up into several languages and various dialects. The imperial philologists have exaggerated the difference in this region also, and have created over 300 languages in India! This is enough to frighten any layman. But apart from this manipulation by denoting every patois as an independent language; we see that there are only several languages with grammar and literature of their own, and there are innumerable dialects. But these dialects cannot be arrayed as evidences against the possibility of the formation of an Indian nationality. Truly late Prof V. Luschan said that “the conception of language is as insecure as the definition of ‘race,’ and possibly it is still more difficult to define the relation between language and dialect; for example who will earnestly decide whether Ladinish (spoken in South Switzerland) is a language in itself or an Italian dialect? Anyway, amongst some of the 14 Italian dialects known to Dante there are more differences than amongst the German spoken in East Prussia and in Switzerland ​and then who can count the number of innumerable spoken dialects, as the late well-known orientalist E. Sachau said that by talking with a man from Bagdad he could tell from which quarter of the town he came from! Thus without exaggeration it can be said that there are as many dialects as men.” And in this way the number of dialects can be increased ad infinitum. But every dialect cannot be cited as a language, neither as an evidence of heterogeneity nor as the basis of “race” as Grierson has done in some cases in India. Here we must remember that some of the important nations of the world to-day are strong nations in spite of dialectic differences.
Thirdly, comes the question of different historical development. Truly, each language group inhabiting a certain area of India have got histories of their own. But the cultural history of India had never been separate, no part in any length of time has gone separate from the rest, rather the sumtotal of all has made the Indian history. Then in the course of her history India have had centralized all-India imperium. During these periods attempts have been made to put the whole land under one political head and to bring the whole country under one historical evolution. To-day the whole country again has got a common historical fate and development.
Fourthly, comes the question of religion. It is a great bond of union in the East especially in western Asia where religion and not the race and language, plays the formative basis of nationality. In India there are different religions with irreconcilable social-polities and world views. And this difference has made the task of the formation of Indian nationality more difficult. Yet in modern civilized countries religion plays no role in civic life. A modern man in dealing with his fellow-beings rises above his religious limitations.
Thus in our analysis of the Indian condition we see that leaving aside the exaggerated differences, the important factors ​that come for consideration as the fundamental bases for nationality are : community of character and language. Here the question comes what is meant by a character of a people? It is that trait which is evolved out of a common historical fate. Otto Bauer says that the basis of nationality is community of blood and descent within a geographical area out of which through a common condition of life and fate, a sort of community of fate and culture has developed. But a community of blood and descent though desirable, yet is not necessary for a common basis. Moreover one must be careful regarding the question of a “common race.” A physical anthropologist finds difference of racial types amongst the past and present races of mankind, or in any given group of men! A social psychologist may say that in order to evolve a common character a racial identity (i.e., community of blood and descent) is not necessary; rather common milieu, training, thought, evolution are the requisites. Thus a basis of a nation is the community of character growing out of a community of fate.
Applying this law to India, even if we consider the question of blood and descent, it will be foolish on the part of that man who maintains that the Indians are very far from each other in the matter of blood and descent. Again, the difference of religion does not imply the difference of origin. The Mohammedans of the Panjab are not distinct from their Hindu neighbours, the same in Bengal; the Christians of South India are not different from their Hindu neighbours. A community of blood and descent does exist in India; and this community of affinities have a common fate, that is, a common cultural, social and historical evolution in the past and in the present.
But language difference does play a big rôle in modern India. The differences of physical characteristics and dialects as they exist to-day in India, existed in the time of the imperial Mauryas and Guptas. Yet the common ​Indo-Aryan culture and social-polities coupled with a Prakrit language made the people feel as kindred to each other. Above this, the hammer of centralized imperial rule of the Mauryas and the Guptas melted down all dialectical differences and provincial peculiarities, and India expressed herself as one. Thus in the past on account of community of character and language there was an Indian nation in the scientific as well as in the juristic sense. Again, in modern India such an evolution was being started under the quasi-national rule of the Timurids, but the evolution was cut short as soon as it gave emphasis to the difference of religion! Present-day India is again, on the threshhold of a new evolution. But the natural course of the Indian history is being hampered by adverse conditions engendered by foreign domination. Therefore the problem to-day is more difficult. To-day India has a community of fate, she is entering the course of a common historic-cultural evolution. The common historical fate will develop a common character. Thus, India as a whole, inspite of her multifarious diversities, through the wheel of a common fate, is going to be welded together as one. The national character is the precipitate of a certain historic-cultural development; and this character which differentiates a man of one nationality from another will be evolved in a national India. The nation appears in the national character, in the nationality of the individual. But the nationality of individual is nothing else than a part of his whole being shaped through the history of the society. Of course in this matter in present-day India divergencies do occur, viz., the history of the Mohammedan society stamps its member and differentiates him from a Hindu who is determined likewise. For this reason, the future Indian society must rise above denominational limitations, and stamp all its members with common national characteristics.
Thus the common historical fate hammers all people into a common character and at the same time builds the ​sentiment of national homogeneity—national feeling. This national feeling in the beginning is nothing else than a pure recognition of a certain homogeneity of certain group in contradistinction to others. It is known as the “instinctive national feeling,” with the increase of nations and their internal solidarity, the consciousness of kindredship and similarities develop which in the case of an individual nation develops into national consciousness or stamped national feeling. Regarding India we see that it is under a wheel of a community of fate which is going to create a community of character, and we are assured of a basis of nationality so far; and with the establishment of a nationality the stamped national feeling will take its rise. But what about the other base—the community of language? It has been said before that India to-day contains several languages; and these language groups are forming the bases of different nationalities in the body-politics of India. By taking the individual language groups and by applying the above formula of Cunow that a nation is a community of character and language, we find that some of the language groups have already built themselves as nations! Today Bengalee, Mahratta, Guzerati, Tamil-speaking groups, etc., culturally are strong nations by themselves. And their sense of nationality when displayed in contradistinction to others is denounced by the laymen as “provincialism”! Indeed in the body-politics of India this sort of “nationalism” is provincialism; but it is unavoidable, as since the break-up of the old Indian unity, different provinces or language groups have developed in their own way; the political, social and economic milieu have evolved a particular character in each of these groups. They have developed what M’Dougall says the “native mental homogeneity” to a certain extent. Thus a community of character and language of the provinces, for example, Bengal and Maharastra, has given them a basis to form nations by themselves.
​Thus today the independent languages of several provinces of India are hastening them in the development of local nationalities and differentiation from the rest.
That community of language is an important bond in the formation of nationality cannot be gainsaid, and in India of today it is a potent factor. Another important factor in Western Asia in this matter is religion. In India it plays its usual West-Asiatic rôle and works havoc in the national question. In present-day India these two important factors are competing with each other. The question for India today is: whether the Indian nation will be evolved out of a community of fate giving rise to a community of character—an Indian national character coupled with community of language to be created; or if the all-Indian unity is not possible, will the Indian nationalities be formed based on the above factors or attempt will be made to base them either on language or on religion?
Today though India is under the wheel of a common fate, a common political, historical and cultural development is going on which is developing in embryonic form the type which is “politically an Indian;” yet an Indian nation is far from being in the growth. The apparent differences of language and religion are hindering the growth of solidarity. Muir is not right when he said that “sentiment” is the thing. In our discussion above we have seen that a sentiment of kind and consciousness is the result and not the cause of solidarity. The sentiment to become a nation does exist in India, but the other factors are as yet wanting.
Taking the hindering factors one by one, we see that religion in spite of its potent charm can never become the binding factor in the Indian nation-building, or in the provincial nation-building. Its influence has to be eliminated from the civic life of India. Yet a subtle attempt is being made to build nationalities in India on the basis of this factor. Today the Mohammedans are trying to build up an Indian​Mohammedan Nationality on this basis! The religious unity of the Mohammedans of different parts of India is being used as the magnet to draw the heterogeneous multitude together. Then an uniformity of language is being attempted to be introduced; of this more later on.
Though language is one of the strongest factors in the nation-building, yet the unity of language always does not make one nation. The community of language in the case of Aryan and Dravidian groups of languages do not exist in India. In this matter it falls short of Cunow’s formula; and a homogeneous Indian nation, then, is not possible? The nation is a complex of various factors. If the language factor fails here, other factors and affinities exist to bind the members of two language groups as one nation in juristic sense; but the mental homogeneity lacking here, sentiment of kindredship will be wanting and a homogeneous nation in cultural sense will not develop.
Thus though linguistically India is divided into two groups, the community of character developing out of community of fate will bind the future Indians together, though the case of the formation of a homogeneous nationality will remain doubtful. The fates of the former Austro-Hungarian monarchy and the Turkish empire serve us as examples.
As said beforehand the community of character and language is developing provincial nationalities, and in some cases it has developed different nationalities in the body-politics of India. But within some of these groups attempt is being made again, to develop nationality on the basis of religion and artificially introduced language. Thus the Mohammedans are trying to solidify the heterogeneous Islamic populations under the influence of religion and artificial (not mother-tongue) language. Attempt is being made on all parts of the country to make Urdu as the common language of these heterogeneous elements. The largest number of Mohammedans dwell in the Panjab and in Bengal. The ​Mohammedans of the Panjab speak Panjabi dialect at home, but the educated ones read and write Urdu. In the same way attempt is being made, though not yet in a decisive form, to universalize Urdu amongst the Mohammedans of Bengal, as also in the Western Presidency. In a way, Urdu is becoming the lingua franca of the Mohammedans of India. In this wise, they are trying to bring about the “acquired mental homogeneity” necessary for the Mohammedan nationhood. Thus in future, given the conditions being favourable, through the community of character arising out of community of fate, and the mental homogeneity thus acquired artificially through the community of language, the Indian-Mohammedan Nationality will be formed which will be a nation within the Indian nationhood which will be a calamity.
In the same way pious wish is being expressed by the Hindus to form a Hindu nationality. For this reason it is being preached to make Hindi as the lingua franca of the Hindus all over India. Thus while all are shouting hoarse over the sacredness of Indian Nationality, attempts are being made to build up two different nations! But the curious thing in this matter is that while the Hindus talk, the Mohammedans act! The Hindus talk of establishing Hindu solidarity but the disintegrating, disruptive and anarchist tendencies inherent in Hindu social-polity being insurmountable, it is they who cannot unite, and on language basis are building up different provincial nationalities such as the “Bengalee,” “Mahratta” and not the Mohammedans! If the Mohammedans succeed in future in building up the all-Indian-Mohammedan nationality based on religion and imported language, the provincial unities based on community of character and language existing hitherto will break up, viz., Bengal will be divided into two nationalities, and the Panjab which is already on the road to develop three nationalities, namely, the Mohammedans with Urdu language and Persian script, the Sikhs with their Gurumukhi script, the Hindus under the ​influence of Arya Samaj taking to Hindi language and Sanskrit script, will receive confirmation of these divisions! The same will be in the case of Guzerat and elsewhere. Thus the cultural fight that is going on between the Hindus and the Mohammedans and the various factors that are contending against one another are serving as hindrances to one growth of Indian nationhood.
Today the Indian leaders and patriots are raising their cry up to heaven on the sacred duty of forming an Indian nationhood, but it seems conscious attempt is not being made for it. When the patriots speak of an “Indian nation” they speak in the sense of political science, which defines that under a National Government India can become a nation. But that is an ephemeral basis for the Indian nationality. For that reason, the surer basis has to be created, and the leaders of thought and society must work towards it. And that surer basis is the community of character and language growing out of community of fate. The last we have got, the community of character is the result of the common evolution, but the community of language for all India is the desideratum. On that account popular Hindusthanee the language of the largest number of Indians, has to be made lingua franca. But the sting of religion has to be taken out of it. That is, the artificial Mohammedan Urdu and Hindu Hindi are not to be made the bones of contention, but the patois Hindusthanee should be made universal. And this would take the wind out of the sail of the attempted denominational basis of nationality through language! Thus given a common language and character under the wheel of a common evolution the Indian nationhood is assured.
But this is a dream of the future and a big hypothesis. Today the centripetal forces are at work, and as said before, different nationalities are being formed in the body-politic of India. This has been discerned by a few politicians, and on that account they are talking of a federation of Indian states, ​i.e., the federation of different Indian nations (in India real provincial boundary is conterminous with linguistic area). As the matter stands today, the provincial national feeling is more potent than the sentimental “Indian” feeling. The critics on India say that India is devoid of national feeling as it is a heterogeneous country, and any talk of freedom is an artificiality created by the agitators. We need not be ashamed at this stupid criticism. It is not a fault that India is not a homogeneous one, and heterogeneous peoples can as well demand freedom and liberty to exist separately. If India cannot be a centralized and homogeneous nation like that of England and France, she can be a Bundestatt, i.e., a federation of states. If the iron hammer that shaped the heterogeneous elements of England into one compact nation under the Plantagenets, and that of France under the Bourbons lacked in the immediate past in India giving rise to modern heterogeneity, that could not be helped; and in the present on the lack of that unifying hammer India perhaps is developing into different nationalities which though deplorable yet the psychological moments of separate development cannot be prevented under the présent conditions. The vastness of the geographical area and its diversities are prompting the centripetal tendencies; and under the present circumstances India is on the road to break up into different provincial nationalities based on local language and character. But this centripetal tendency can be combated by the centrifugal tendency of introducing one language for all India which will create the “acquired mental homogeneity” which is necessary for the development of all-India nationhood, but it is a vision at present. Also the future will decide the fate of the cultural fight waged around denominational differences. The history of the world so far has shown that the bond of mother tongue is more potent than that of religion. And it can be safely said that in a land of complex problems, like that of India, the bond of religion alone when put against ​the various provincial affinities cannot be made the basis of a denominational nationality. Therefore, in the last analysis the question stands, whether to form an all-India nationhood on the basis of common character and language which of course will be the task of a favourable historic-cultural evolution, or to take the matter as it is and to form a federation of provincial nations. But it must be admitted that the latter will be disastrous;. though the formation of provincial nationalities in many cases cannot be prevented, yet the growth of an all-Indian nationality is advantageous aud some of the bases of its formation being present, conscious attempts must be made to foster it and to realize the desideratum.
Bhupendranath Datta