Bhupendranath Dutt

“ 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. ”

“ 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. ”

“ 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 ”

“ 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. ”

“ 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.” ”

“ 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. ”

“ 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. ”

“ 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. ”

“ 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. ”

“ 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. ”

“ 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. ”