Article

The Nationalism Indian Journal of Public

Administration
Debate: Past 63(1) 1–12
© 2017 IIPA
SAGE Publications
and Present sagepub.in/home.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0019556117689853
http://ipa.sagepub.com

Muchkund Dubey1

Abstract
The nation states have emerged and been shaped through an evolutionary pro-
cess. The major factors triggering their emergence have been rise of capitalism,
breakdown of empires, independence of colonial territories and, in recent years,
the disintegration of large federal states. The character and the authority of
nation states have been shaped initially by the interstate system of the Treaty of
Westphalia and largely by the French Revolution and the United Nations (UN)
Charter, rise of regionalism and globalisation. Nationalism continues to thrive
and remain dominant all over the world mainly because its possible substitutes
such as global capitalism, socialist internationalism and UN multilateralism did
not prove viable. The major challenges the nation states face today are coping
with new problems arising within their territories and those which affect the
very survival of mankind. The Indian nationalism embraces the entire variety
of elements which go into the making of a nation state. It has been a subject of
bitter controversy starting from India’s independence movement. To be true to
its ethos reflected in the Indian Constitution, it must remain pluralistic, inclusive
and humanitarian.

Keywords
Nationalism, capitalism, struggle, sovereignty, globalisation

Definition and Evolution

Hugh Seton-Watson, one of the earliest authorities on the subject of nationalism,
has stated in his book Nations and States: ‘no scientific definition of the nation
can be devised’.1 Yet, he states, the phenomenon has existed and still exists.

1
President, Council for Social Development, New Delhi, India.

Corresponding author:
Muchkund Dubey, President, Council for Social Development, 53 Lodi Estate, New Delhi-110 003,
India.
E-mail: csdnd@del2.vsnl.net.in
2 Indian Journal of Public Administration 63(1)

Therefore, a definition, even though not strictly scientific but which conveys the
meaning of the term succinctly, is needed.
We can start with the definition given by Rabindranath Tagore in his well-
known lectures, later published as a book under the title Nationalism. According
to this definition, the nation is ‘an aspect of a whole people as an organized power’
(Tagore, 1918, p. 55). It is interesting that Tagore saw nation only as an aspect of
a people. For, people, either as individuals or as part of broad humanity, seek and
pursue objectives going beyond the nation to which they belong. Tagore singled
out ‘organized power’ as an essential attribute of a nation. Sovereignty goes with
a nation. And a sovereign entity is organised in that it has military power, bureau-
cracy, a set of rules and a propaganda machinery—communication system in the
modern context—which is used to remain in power.
Some of the elements of Tagore’s definition are present in Benedict Anderson’s
definition of a nation as an ‘Imagined Political Community’ (Anderson, 2015,
p. 6). According to Anderson, a nation is ‘imagined’ because even when limited to
a very small area, all its attributes are not visible to those who share it and several
of the attributes and the concept as a whole are imagined. In addition, a nation is
a ‘community’, which is close to the term ‘an aspect of a whole people’, used by
Tagore.
The nation is built on a whole gamut of factors which are imagined in total-
ity by the people, but most of which, such as language, religion and other herit-
ages, from the past are not common to all of them. The salient features of a nation
differ from case to case depending upon its historical origin and evolution. It has
cultural, economic as well as political dimensions. It can be both essentialist and
secular. Pre-nation states were essentially ecclesiastic, dynastic or absolutist. The
Holy Roman Empire was a typical example of an ecclesiastic feudal state. The
Austro-Hungarian Empire was an example of a dynastic state. Both these empires
were absolutist, in principle.
The nation states have emerged, expanded and contracted in history through
an evolutionary process. European industrialisation and other forms of capitalism
triggered the emergence of important nation states. It is well known that person-
alities such as Bismarck, Cavour and Garibaldi played critical roles in giving
shapes to the formation of the nation states of Germany and Italy, but the principal
motivation behind the evolution of these nation states was to seek the enlarge-
ment of markets and more efficient and larger scale collection of taxes to invest in
order to take full advantage of rising capitalism. Capitalism itself, as it evolved,
led to the advent of more nation states on the European scene. Anderson in his
book explains in great length and detail, how the invention of the printing press
and the subsequent development of vernacular scholarship in lexicography and
grammar, led to the rise in Europe of a large number of new nation states based on
the enhanced consciousness of linguistic and other cultural identities. Emergence
of countries, such as Hungary and Poland, as nation states is some of the examples
in this category.
One of the major factors triggering the emergence of nation states has been
the breakdown of empires in different phases of history. The breakdown of the
Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and Czarist empires led to the advent of a large
Dubey 3

number of nation states, particularly in West Asia (Middle East) and East Europe
(the Balkans). The rise of Settler Nationalism in Latin America is attributable to the
liquidation of the Spanish empire there, brought about by the military campaign
led by the great Latin American hero, Simon Bolivar. The USA emerged as a
nation state of the settlers following the defeat of the British Empire in the armed
struggle for liberation, led by Thomas Jefferson.
In the post-Second World War period, a large number of nation states came
into being as a result of the struggle for freedom from European imperialism
carried out by peoples in Asia and Africa. This process continued for a long time
in an intensive form until the mid-1960s and in a sporadic manner for decades
thereafter. The end of colonialism and the creation of nation states on its debris
were accepted as an objective under the Charter of the UN. A separate perma-
nent organ of the UN, the Trusteeship Council, was created as the midwife of
this process, with the role of assisting in the painful transformation of erstwhile
colonies in Asia and Africa into sovereign nation states. This turned out to be a
stellar achievement of the UN and the single most important factor leading to the
manifold expansion of the membership of the organisation.
The last and the most recent historical spate of the emergence of new nation
states came about as a result of the breakdown and splitting of some of the exist-
ing individual nation states during the closing phase of the 20th century. The most
prominent among them were the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)
and Yugoslavia. In this wave, the two other states each of which split into two
were Czechoslovakia in Europe and Ethiopia in Africa. This process of disin-
tegration of nation states was, however, accompanied by the reverse process of
integration and unification, the outstanding examples of the latter being those of
Germany and Yemen.
In modern history, three major phenomena have played a critical role in the
shaping of nation states. The first is the emergence of the interstate system start-
ing from the Treaty of Westphalia and culminating in the UN Charter. This led
to the political consolidation of the nation states. It legitimised their sovereignty
along with its attributes of standing army, centralised bureaucracy and diplomatic
services. It imparted nation states relative longevity through the recognition of
the sanctity of existing boundaries, the ‘one-nation-one-vote’ principle, and that
of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states. At the same time, these
treaties put limits on state sovereignty by laying down international laws govern-
ing inter se relations among nations. These laws called for the curtailment of a
part of the sovereignty of nation states in several important spheres.
The second important phenomenon was the rise of regionalism, particularly in
Europe, which put multiple voluntary restrictions on the exercise of sovereignty
by the member states constituting a regional grouping. Regionalism has unfolded
itself in different forms and hues in different parts of the world, but nowhere did
it go as far as it did in Europe. The European regionalism today has come under
severe strain. However, what has been achieved during the few decades it has
been in operation is unprecedented and of historical significance by any standard
of judgement. Besides, in spite of all the problems besetting it currently, it will be
premature to predict its demise.
4 Indian Journal of Public Administration 63(1)

The last important phenomenon which has had a decisive influence on the
power and authority of nation states is globalisation. One of the consequences of
the current phase of globalisation has been the weakening of the nation state and
the erosion of its authority. This phase has coincided with the breakup of some of
large nation states and the rise of new ones. Globalisation has drastically curtailed
the monopoly of the nation state, among others, over information, use of force
and dispensation of justice. This has, on the whole, created conditions for frequent
and large-scale foreign interventions both covert and overt, in the internal affairs
of nations.
While globalisation has resulted in the weakening of the nation states, nation
states themselves, particularly the major powers, have played an active role in
the promotion and expansion of globalisation by economic, political and mili-
tary means (Friedman, 2012). Multinational corporations, which are a defining
feature of the current process of globalisation, have sought the assistance of the
nation states where they originate from and where their headquarters are located,
to expand themselves globally through access to markets and investment. These
nation states have also played a leading role in evolving rules and regimes, such as
the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)
and Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs), in the Uruguay
Round of Trade Negotiations and structural adjustment programmes under the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, which have significantly
abridged the space for macroeconomic policymaking by nation states, particularly
from the developing world, thereby expanding the foothold of the transnational
companies in these countries.
In the latest phase of its evolution, nationalism has acquired significant new
characteristics and dimensions. There is now a greater emphasis in a nation state
on the right of citizens as individuals as well as collectives, pitted against the sway
of the nation state. Second, there is much greater emphasis on justice, equality and
freedom than on stability, solidarity and fraternity. An increasing number of nation
states are moving towards democracy, even though this process is proving very
painful and slow and the democracies that have come to be established are deeply
flawed. Even dictators are justifying their remaining in absolute power in the name
of democracy, on the basis of their false claim of enjoying the support of the people.

Nationalism Today
In spite of the reversal suffered by it in recent years, nationalism continues to
thrive and remain dominant all over the world. The main reason for this is that no
doctrine or system devised to substitute nationalism has proved successful and
viable. Capitalism could not and cannot become a substitute primarily because
this system itself is anchored on the nation state. It has been consolidated and
strengthened by nation states, and even though it has now assumed transnational
proportions, it continues to seek the assistance of nation states to expand and
pursue its inherent objective of profit and rent seeking. In recent years, whenever
Dubey 5

capitalism has faced a crisis mainly on account of market failures, the nation state
has come to its rescue. The most recent examples are the US government rescu-
ing the giant multinational General Motors and the European countries bailing
out their mega-size banks during the global financial and economic crisis of
2008–2009.
Nor could nationalism be substituted by socialist internationalism which,
in fact, remained an aspiration and could never become a reality. All socialist
states during the post-Second World War period have been essentially national-
ist. China is the quintessential example of this. In spite of its socialist objectives,
programmes and trappings, this country has ruthlessly pursued its nationalist
ambition of territorial expansion, aggrandisement and aggression. The USSR was
supposed to transcend nationalism, as no nation is mentioned under this nomen-
clature. However, nationalism survived in almost all the component republics
under the umbrella of the union. Besides, this territorial-political entity lasted for
a relatively short period in history.
The third system designed for substantially moderating nationalism without,
however, replacing it has been internationalism, which in its final form was
institutionalised under the UN. This system in spite of some of its major flaws,
particularly the hegemony of the Permanent Members of the Security Council
reflected in their veto power, was the highest stage reached by internationalism.
Its distinguishing features were its universality, its principles of sovereign equal-
ity of states, non-interference in domestic affairs, and collective responsibility
to maintain peace and prevent threat to peace and act of aggression. Under it,
the Security Council was the sole authority to use or permit the use of force.
One of the greatest tragedies of the modern era has been that this system was
never allowed to function as was envisaged in its Charter. Some of the important
Charter provisions enabling the UN to discharge its unique functions were never
operationalised. Several others were eroded or transferred to other international
organisations. Its substantive capacity was never allowed to be fully realised,
and in recent years, it has been virtually dismantled. One would, however, like
to hope that internationalism both in the form of the UN and various regional
structures devised since the mid-1950 is still a work in progress. Multilateralism
has been threatened both by hegemonism and unilateralism. Since the end of the
relatively brief moment of unilateralism during the 1990s, the international order
has become increasingly plurilateral. But it is yet to become truly and effectively
multilateral, which was envisaged in the UN Charter.

Challenges Facing Nation States

The nation states face two major challenges today. First, they are required to cope
with new problems arising within their respective territories. The most important
among them are domestic and international terrorism, religious extremism,
demands for self-determination, and mass poverty and deprivation. Second, they
are facing problems which affect the very survival of mankind and which cannot
6 Indian Journal of Public Administration 63(1)

be solved only through exertions at the national level. These problems fall under
the following three categories:

1. Continuing deprivation of a large mass of humanity of the basic needs of

life, such as education, basic health facilities and food;
2. The current ecological crisis and the challenge to cope with the conse-
quences of climate change; and
3. Proliferation of nuclear weapons. In spite of the progress in disarma-
ment in the post-War period, humankind is still sitting on vast arsenals
of nuclear weapons which in the event of a nuclear war can destroy many
times over, humankind and all its achievements of the past millennia. In
a paper published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in
2015, the author Alexei Arbatov, an eminent expert in security and disar-
mament issues, has concluded (Arbatov, 2015):

It is obvious that the world is presently facing the most serious and most com-
prehensive crisis in the 50 years history of nuclear arms control. This crisis
may quite possibly result in the total disintegration of the existing framework
of treaties and regimes. In this event, the arms race will probably resume—with
the direst military, political and economic consequences for mankind.

At the national level, each state has to devise and develop strategies to deal
with divisive and violent forces threatening its existence. Developing countries, in
particular, need to devise strategies to deal with problems of economic, social and
religious exclusion. At the international level, the goal should be to build a thor-
oughly revamped, dynamic and democratic multilateralism with the UN Charter
and its institutions, providing its underpinning.

Self-determination and Nationalism

The post-World War-II order enshrined in the UN was based on the sanctity of
national boundaries inherited after the War, and respect for sovereignty within
that boundary. It recognised the right of self-determination for only those who
lived in colonial territories. It provided the institutional mechanism of the
UN Trusteeship Council to help people under colonial occupation to achieve
independence and acquire sovereignty.
However, the situation underwent a change with the erosion of the concept
of nationalism brought about by forces triggered by the current phase of glo-
balisation. This historical shift has reached a stage where, today, in the opinion
of several political thinkers and social activists, the very concept of nationalism
is anachronistic. The logical corollary of this shift is the notion that there is no
territorial right and the only right is that of the people. Hence, every ethnic
group within a nation state can claim self-determination, including in the form of
separate nationhood with the full paraphernalia of sovereignty.
The lead in the evolution of the concept of nationalism in this direction has
come mainly from the governments of Western countries backed by their political
Dubey 7

scientists. So, overwhelming is the influence of these academics, due to a variety

of reasons, including the phenomenon of academic dependency, over academics
in the Third World that the latter have embraced this theory of nationalism without
much questioning and have started teaching it to their students and doing research
on that basis, as though it is a universal wisdom. This instance of providing intel-
lectual justification for shift in policies to suit national interests of dominant
powers is not unknown in history. The motives behind it can be easily guessed.
Developing countries including India, where the task of nation building still
remains incomplete, cannot and should not accept this shift in the concept of
nationalism. They are still sorely in need of the cementing power of nationalism
and the energy and creativity it generates, for instilling stability and cohesion in
society, for moving to a higher stage of development, particularly industrialisa-
tion, and for acquiring the bargaining power to negotiate successfully for advanc-
ing their national interests and bringing about changes in the existing world order.
But the nationalism, which they need for these purposes and which they should
nurture and strengthen, must be based on respect and the creation of conditions
for the exercise of the fundamental and basic rights by every ethnic, religious,
linguistic and cultural groups within the nation. That continuing and large-scale
violation of these rights can ultimately result in the disintegration of the nation
state is exemplified by the recent history of the splitting of Bangladesh from
Pakistan and Eritrea from Ethiopia.
Within our sovereign territory, we should judge each case of demand for
self-determination on its own merits. A mere articulation of and agitation for
such a demand over a period of time does not constitute sufficient justification
for conceding it. What appears to be a seemingly powerful movement for self-
determination has its ebbs and tides. In several cases, such demands have proved
to be a transient phenomenon which has lost its salience in subsequent periods and
has not resurfaced.
Today in the context of the weakening of the nation state brought about by
globalisation and the strident and unprecedented assertion of ethnic and cultural
identities, the general policy for a federal state like India should be to apply
maximum degree of flexibility in granting autonomy to its constituent units in
order to hold the nation together.
While considering demands for self-determination within a sovereign territory
of a nation, it is natural for a nation to consider the extent to which such a demand
is abetted and assisted by foreign forces and powers to serve their own interests.
However, the perception of such a foreign design should not be exaggerated and,
in any case, not used by a majoritarian authority to deny human rights to particular
sections of the society.

Nationalism and Secularism

By secular nation, we mean a nation which has plurality of religions but which
does not identify itself with any of them either by making religion as its organis-
ing principle or in other ways. All nation states are not secular. There are several
states, including most of the Gulf and Arab countries, many African countries,
8 Indian Journal of Public Administration 63(1)

Pakistan, Malaysia and Brunei in Asia and Israel, which are not secular. With the
exception of Israel, most of these states are either dynastic or authoritarian; no
genuinely democratic state is a religious state. Moreover, unlike in the earlier era
of the Caliphate and the Holy Roman Empire, there is no religious state which is
not also a nation state. There has recently been a revival of the Caliphate in the
form of the Islamic State of Iraq & Syria (ISIS), but its existence still appears to
be tenuous.
There is a trend during the last few decades of nation states based on the organis-
ing principle of religion, coming under severe strain because of the rise of dem-
ocratic forces within their territories. These states, therefore, face the prospect of
being swept away by the democratic secular wave. By far, the largest numbers
of countries in the world are organised on the basis of essential democratic values
of equal citizenship, and hence equal rights and equality of opportunities. The
assumption behind the organisation of these states has been that the prevailing
tension, conflict and violence arising out of differences based on religion and
other cultural identities will disappear if equality of opportunity is provided
and justice meted out to all citizens, if the basic needs of the people are taken
care of and if peace and progress is achieved through united national effort.
This assumption has not fructified in a significant manner of these countries,
particularly developing countries. This was also the assumption on the basis of
which the leaders of India’s freedom movement carried out the freedom struggle
and subsequently made secularism the organising principle of the state. In the case
of India too, this assumption is yet to come true.

Indian Nationalism and Its Main Challenges

The Indian nationalism is highly complex, as it embraces the entire variety of
elements that go into the making of a nation, that is, language, religion, ethnicity,
historical legacies and mores and traditions. Different philosophers, thinkers,
saints and savants have seen India’s nationalism in different hues. Rabindranath
Tagore said that he loved India above all because ‘she has saved through tumultu-
ous ages the living words that have issued from the illuminated consciousness of
her great ones’ (Nehru, 1998, p. 563). In his Discovery of India, Nehru summed
up the features of Indian nationalism in the following words:

India is a geographical and economic entity, cultural unity amidst diversity, a bundle of
contradictions held together by strong but invisible threads. (ibid., p. 562)

Rabindranath Tagore had, on the whole, a dim view of nationalism. In his lectur-
ers on nationalism, he characterised the phenomenon in very negative and deroga-
tive terms, going to the extent of describing it a great menace. He stated, ‘We must
give a warning that this nationalism is cruel epidemic of evil that is sweeping over
the present world and eating it into its moral vitality’ (Tagore, 1918, p. 9). In his
criticism of nationalism, Tagore was very much influenced by the experience of
cruelty, rapacity and indignity perpetrated by the Western nations against what he
called ‘No-Nations’ (ibid., p. 12). He was also horrified by the devastations these
Dubey 9

nations heaped on their adversaries when they fought wars against each other.
Moreover, he argued: ‘A nation state which accumulates power for attaining supe-
riority over the rivals, engages in wars with them from time to time cannot but
jeopardise the freedom and humanity of its own people’ (ibid.). Speaking to a
Japanese audience he stated: ‘I have seen in Japan, the voluntary submission of
the whole people in the trimming of their minds and the crippling freedom by
their government which through various educational agencies, regulates their
thoughts and manufactures their feelings’ (ibid., p. 14). But the strongest reason
why Tagore was against nationalism was his belief that it came in the way of his
notion of true internationalism which must embrace the entire mankind and which
must be founded on the human values of simplicity, beauty and oneness with
others at the level of both individuals and nations.
It is this belief that led Tagore to openly differ with Mahatma Gandhi on the
salience and dimensions acquired by the evolving Indian nationalism during the
course of India’s independence movement. In this connection, he specifically
objected to those manifestations of the non-violent movement for independence
which had the effect of generating hatred against the British.
Mahatma Gandhi, on the other hand, openly differed with Tagore on this issue.
In a written rejoinder to Tagore, Gandhi emphatically stated that ‘the Indian
nationalism is not exclusive; it is humanitarian’ (Bhattacharya, 1997, p. 30).
Gandhi saw the achievement of independence for India and India’s service to the
broader cause of humanity as a two-phase process. Gandhi’s strategy was first to
throw away the yoke of colonialism and then to join the international community
as a free nation in the service of humanity. He believed that the realisation of the
freedom for India will place it in a better position to realise its mission of the
brotherhood of mankind. He said, ‘Patriotism includes the service of humanity’
(ibid.). It is their narrowness and selfishness which is the bane of modern nations.
Gandhi also made it a point, though at times with limited success, to ensure that
the essential human values were observed while carrying out the non-cooperation
movement and to prevent the struggle against the British Raj degenerating into
hatred against the Britishers.
It is remarkable that the two great leaders never allowed their differences to
come in the way of the task that the other had undertaken—Gandhi to win India’s
independence and Tagore to strive for the unity of humankind based on a set of
eternal values. This was exemplified in the manner in which they appreciated the
significance of the contribution of each other. Gandhi said, ‘I regard the poet as
a sentinel, warning us against the approaching enemies called bigotry, lethargy,
intolerance, ignorance and inertia’ (ibid., p. 8). The very title of Gandhiji’s rejoin-
der was ‘Sentinel’. Tagore, on the other hand, paying tribute to Gandhi on his 70th
birthday, stated that Gandhi whose activities lay in practical politics, ‘was one of
the makers of history’ (ibid., p. 28).
Tagore in his own way, offered powerful resistance against the British Raj.
This was reflected in his full participation in the Swadeshi Movement in the
first decade of the 20th century, the firm position he took against the partition of
Bengal and the leadership he provided to the movement against it, and the return
of the Knighthood conferred upon him by the British, as a protest against the
Jallianwala Bagh massacre. In some of his patriotic songs written mostly during
10 Indian Journal of Public Administration 63(1)

the period of the protest movement against the partition of Bengal, he invoked
the glory of India with sobriety, dignity and evocativeness which very few Indian
poets, who wrote on the same theme, have been able to muster. In one of these
patriotic songs, he asks: What have they given us? What do they have to give? But
you have given us mother, all that you have: your fields and marts, golden grains
and legends extolling human piety.
Jawaharlal Nehru did not directly join the debate between the Mahatma and the
Poet on the issue of nationalism versus internationalism. But independently of it,
he made his distinctive position on this issue clear in no uncertain terms. Writing
in the Discovery of India he said,

But nationalism was and is inevitable in the India of my day; it is a natural and healthy
growth. For any subject country, national freedom must be the first and the dominant
urge; for India, with her intense sense of individuality and a past heritage, it is doubly
so. (Nehru, 1998, p. 52)

He justified his positive approach towards nationalism also on the basis of his
understanding of the international trend. He wrote, ‘the abiding appeal of nation-
alism to the spirit of man has to be recognized and provided for’ (ibid., p. 53).
Nehru dismissed those who advocated that India should compromise its
nationalism for the sake of internationalism. He sarcastically said:

Those who tell us so seem to imagine that true nationalism would triumph if we agreed
to remain a junior partner in the British Empire or Commonwealth of Nations. They do
not appear to realise that this particular type of internationalism is only an extension of
a narrow British nationalism. (ibid., p. 53)

Nehru, however, made it clear that India was second to none in believing in true
internationalism and participating in its progress. He said, ‘Nevertheless, India for
all her intense nationalistic fervour, has gone further than many nations in her
acceptance of real internationalism and the coordination and even to some extent
the subordination, of the Indian nation state to a world organization’ (ibid., p. 53).
He emphatically stated: ‘Thus we shall remain true Indians and Asiatic and
become at the same time good internationalist and world citizens’ (ibid., p. 566).
In the Asian Relations Conference, Nehru was more specific. There he envisaged
the UN as the beginning of the process of building One World. He said, ‘We have
arrived at a stage for human affairs when the ideal of One World and some kind of
World Federation seem to be essential…We, therefore, support the United Nations
structure which is painfully emerging from its infancy’ (Asian Relations, 1948).
The most important challenge facing Indian nationalism is to make it genuinely
inclusive, while retaining the full richness of its plurality. According to Rabindranath
Tagore, the real challenge is to find and establish harmony between what Tagore
called ‘races’ by which he meant tribes, castes and religious, linguistic and other
cultural groups. Tagore said that the harmony was the principal pursuit of our saints
and savants through ages, but the problem continues (Tagore, 1918, pp. 48–49).
In shaping a new nationalism for India, we have to hark back to the past while
fixing our gaze on the future. We must retain some of the inheritances of the past.
Dubey 11

But it is critical that we make the right choice in this regard. In doing so, we
should not give salience to particular religion or culture of the past. Jawaharlal
Nehru hinted at the same objective when he said that we must discard some of the
bondage of and boundary around individuals inherited from the past. He wrote,
‘India’s pride as a nation comes not from a romanticised past to which we want to
cling nor should it encourage exclusiveness for want of appreciation of other ways
than ours’ (Nehru, 1998, p. 566).
Tagore strongly believed that what India must struggle against are the evils in
humankind operating at the socio-political level, and not a particular state or a gov-
ernment. In this connection, he made this prophetic remark: ‘The alien government
in India is a chameleon. Today it comes in the guise of an Englishman; tomorrow
perhaps in some other foreigner; the next day, without aborting a jot of its viru-
lence, it may take the shape of our own countrymen’ (Bhattacharya, 1997, p. 25).
Among the evils operating at the socio-political level, Tagore singled out the
prevalence of inherited discrimination and hatred in the Indian society. He said:

In India there is no common birth right. And when we talk of Western nationality we
forget that the nations there do not have the physical repulsion, one for the other that we
have between different castes. Have we an instance in the whole world where a people
who are not allowed to mingle shed their blood for one another except for coercion
or for mercenary purposes?’ And can we ever hope that these moral barriers against
our race amalgamation will not stand in the way of our political unity? (Tagore, 1918,
pp. 61–62)

He was equally critical of the then prevailing intolerance and exploitation in

Indian society. He said:

The social habit of mind which impels us to make the life of our fellow-beings a burden
to them where they differ from us even in such a thing as their choice of food, is sure to
persist in our political organisation and result in creating engines of coercion to crush
every rational difference which is the sign of life. And tyranny will only add to the
inevitable lies and hypocrisy in our political life. (ibid., p. 62)

We have quoted Tagore’s remarks extensively because they have such a strong
ring of contemporary reality in India. The pluralistic and at the same time inclu-
sive and humanitarian ethos of Indian nationalism is best captured in Rabindranath
Tagore’s poem in Gitanjali under the title Bharat Tirth. The poem starts with the
invocation:

O my mind,
Awake slowly at this holy pilgrimage -
The shore of great humanity that is India,
Subsequently in the poem the poet describes the inclusiveness and the essential plural-
ism of the Indian nationalism in the following soul-stirring words:
Nobody knows at whose beckoning
How many streams of humanity
Came from which directions, in flood streams,
And got lost in this ocean?
12 Indian Journal of Public Administration 63(1)

Here came the Aryans, the non-Aryans,

The Dravidians, the Chinese
The Shakas, the hordes of the Huns, the Pathans, the Mughals
And got immersed in this body

They are all present in me

None, none is distant,
In my bloodstream is echoed
Their wondrous tunes2

Notes
1. Hugh Seton-Watson, Nations and States, p. 5, quoted in Benedict Anderson’s book
Imagined Communities, p. 3.
2. Translated by the author from the original Bengalee.

References
Anderson, Benedict. (2015). Imagined communities. Jaipur, India: Rawat Publications.
Arbatov, Alexie. (2015). An unnoticed crisis: The end of history for nuclear arms control?
Washington, DC: Carnegie Moscow Centre, Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace.
Asian Relations. (1948). Being report of the proceedings and documentation of the First
Asian Relations Conference, New Delhi, March–April 1947. New Delhi, India: Asian
Relations Organization.
Bhattacharya, Sabyasachi. (1997). The Mahatma and the poet. New Delhi, India: National
Book Trust.
Friedman, Thomas L. (2012). The Lexus and the olive tree: Understanding globalisation.
New York, NY: Picador.
Nehru, Jawaharlal. (1998). The discovery of India. New Delhi, India: Oxford University
Press. (Eighteenth Impression).
Tagore, Rabindranath. (1918). Nationalism. London, UK: The Macmillan Company.