Title: Nationalism without a Nation in India
Author: G. Aloysius
Publisher: Oxford University Press, 1998 (First published 1997)
ISBN: 9780195641042
Pages: 265
When the British established their colonial supremacy in India, they brought into being the political unification of the country the scale of which it had not witnessed in several centuries. When the time came to say goodbye to the empire, they were apprehensive about the future of this political unity. Amazingly for them and other Eurocentric doomsayers, India exhibited a remarkable coherence and integrity. There were Western observers who wondered how Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu remained part of the same nation while comparable entities in Europe such as France and England are articulated into mutually hostile nation-states. The prime reason for this harmonious existence is the cultural unity of India that binds varied ethnicities, religions, languages and customs to fuse together. Liberal – especially of the Left-leaning type – scholars find this difficult to swallow and come up with theories which speculate about an impending fall of the Indian nation because of the incongruence of its subject parts. This book is one among this genre that attempts ‘a sociological study of nationalism using the two central theories of social structure and social change as a framework for investigating different spheres of nationalism’. It then concludes that instead of giving birth to one national society, nationalism seems to have delivered a whole litter of communities divided from one another in terms of language, religion, region or caste. G. Aloysius studied at the Jawaharlal Nehru University and is widely known for sociological studies on Indian society and research on social and tribal movements of India.
Aloysius starts with a rhetorical observation that pan-Indian nationalism is elitist, false and insensitive to regional variations. Caste system and its ideology permeated the entire region as the clearest form of hierarchical structuring of society. Brahmins and other upper castes dominated all others and maintained hegemony in the unchanging rural landscape. This was upheld by the political power, both native as well as imperialist. Despite the rise and fall of dynasties and change in political boundaries, the social order remained stable as a ‘universalized norm of custom and tradition’. Resistance to this order was also part and parcel of the tradition from the beginning. The Brahminic system was resisted by heterodox sects like ajivikas and shramanas in the ancient period and sects such as Vira Shaivism, Sikhism and Kabirpanth in medieval times. Contrary to the nationalist claim that the British occupation messed up the natural societal order, Aloysius absolves the imperialists of any such responsibility. The British did not and could not effect any serious change in Indian society and the old order won in the end (p.34).
The book then makes some serious audit of the British Raj in the nineteenth century. It claims that the British only wanted to ensure sufficient revenue for themselves and enjoined the upper castes to be a part of the governing structure. Colonial rule only strengthened the existing caste hierarchy by channelling it into the newly created power machinery. Entering the bureaucracy was through modern education which was monopolized by upper castes. There was no change in agrarian relations too as the government chose not to intervene in social issues. Lower caste movements took part in nation-making at this point by fighting for the concepts of equal social rights leading to citizenship, mass literacy and social-spatial mobility as a new principle of social life. Jotiba Phule elaborated the ideology of Dravidian origin to counter the prevalent Aryan theory of race among Brahmins (p.61). Here the author forgets to mention that the Aryan invasion hypothesis was invented by the British and not the Brahmins. By pushing in the concept of race with this false statement, Aloysius makes an outrageous assessment that the birth and growth of Indian nationalist movement was tinged with racist sentiments and overtones (p.94) thereby making it palatable to his European audience. The 1857 rebellion is said to be based on antagonism with the British largely based on race, religion and colour. In fact, this trope is first introduced in the preface itself which claims that discussions of nationalism in India ranged between sheer xenophobia and ‘sacred patriotism’. This is totally wrong and against the Indian spirit of toleration and assimilation which was never xenophobic. Aloysius seems to be confusing xenophobia with self-defence against foreign invaders.
The book makes a critical study of the religions in India and identifies Hinduism as the root and sole cause of the nation’s backwardness and social oppression. However, in order to appear objective, he cleverly calls it Brahminism when it suits him and goes all out in criticising it. He vacuously asserts that other religions such as Christianity, Islam and Buddhism are egalitarian but Brahminism alone was exploitative. He enthusiastically lauds the missionaries and evangelists since “the evangelists were ferocious in their attack on the inegalitarian nature of social Hinduism” (p.47). Aloysius suggests religious conversion as a way to gain strength and respect for the lower castes. As an illustration, he claims that “Shanar movement [in Kerala and Tamil Nadu] gained additional strength through mass conversions to Christianity in their civil disabilities” (p.56). If the Shanars turned en masse to Christianity, they were no longer Shanars as per caste custom. The author drops an unintended hint that these people continued to be looked upon with their previous caste identity even after conversion. Aloysius then proudly lists conversion to Christianity as a good alternative to ‘caste slavery’ and fumes at those who call the converts ‘rice Christians’ (p.70).
The burning issue in the years leading to independence in 1947 was whether Hindus and Muslims constituted two distinct nations who cannot cohabit together. A lot of heated discourse and human blood flowed to finally settle this issue by partitioning the country. In this context, it is astonishing that Aloysius has totally ignored this point in this work on ‘creating the Indian nation’. Apart from some half-hearted comments on the Muslim elite creating a constituency of their own, this book skirts this crucial subject. The reason is only too obvious. Like all Leftist scholars, he doesn’t want to invite the ire of Islamists and thereby forego their patronage. Instead, he clubs Muslims along with Dalits and other lower castes and depicts them as equally suffering from the atrocities of the upper castes. This leads him to suggest harmony and alliance between them and the lower castes which forces him to invent excuses when such camaraderie was not actually seen anywhere in practice. The Nama Shudras and Muslims were said to be allies in East Bengal against the higher castes. However, in communal riots which frequently occurred, the Nama Shudras were at the receiving end of the violence along with the upper castes in equal measure. Aloysius lightens this contradiction with the remark that it was only the result of ‘near-equal communities competing for the same set of opportunities’ (p.65). But when Kshatriya landlords attacked Noniyas who were their tenants, it was not a local landlord-tenant issue, but an example of caste oppression (p.66). The author also narrates some lofty daydreams on Muslim political awakening. The deprivation caused by the new dispensation of power in favour of upper caste Hindus led to the birth of Muslim nationalism. This author never suspects Muslim exclusivism or plain religious fanaticism behind it. In fact, the alliance between Muslims and the lower castes was only a temporarily prudent strategy to dent the numerical superiority of Hindus and to divide and weaken them further. The so-called upper caste ideology talked about the nation and not about religion, but the author castigates it to be communal. On the other hand, the Muslim demand for Pakistan was openly based on religion but Aloysius finds true national spirit there which was antagonized by Hindu separatism. The Moplah riot of 1921 in Malabar which was an ethnic cleansing of Hindus is presented as an agrarian rebellion in which ‘the polluted castes were spared as a rule while murderous attacks were against oppressive upper castes’ (p.88). Apart from the moral question of justifying violence directed against a community on ideological grounds for being ‘oppressors’, this statement is totally false. There were numerous instances in the riots in which lower castes were also targeted (see my review of Beyond Rampage: West Asian Contacts of Malabar and Khilafat here for more details on this).
Aloysius’ theory of the birth of Indian nationalism can be condensed in a nutshell: the upper castes devised it to maintain their monopoly on state power when the ‘benign’ British gradually began to accommodate the interests of the lower castes. When the share of land revenue in national income dwindled in the 1870s, the British extended protective measures, education and employment to lower castes. Resentment on this count caused the germination of nationalism. Aloysius wastes no opportunity to drive a wedge between the upper and lower castes of Hinduism and to destroy the very fabric of Indian society in the resultant conflagration he thirsts to witness. In response to the British challenge on upper caste monopoly of power, they introduced reforms and revival of the Brahminical ideology. This helped it to settle on reincarnating itself as pan-Indian political-national Hinduism. This provided a context for the politico-economic interests of the same social forces to transform itself as nationalism. By the term ‘they’, the author means Brahmins and a small circle of upper castes centred around them. Moreover, cultural nationalism was constructed in India by the deep commitment and contribution of imperialist and orientalist scholarship (p.135). With this statement, Aloysius transfers the credit for creating nationalism back to the British and alleges that India’s national leaders were afraid of the masses they were supposed to be leading. Due to this mortal fright of the masses, they sought British protection from them (p.117). This set of conclusions is natural as most of the sources and references of this book’s research are colonial scholars. It is true that there was reaction from Orthodox sections against the concept of equality extended to oppressed castes. This does not include the core group of nationalism. But Aloysius maliciously club them together to claim that all of them worked to sabotage the concept of equal rights to subaltern people.
Gandhi’s devotees would cringe with unease at the level of criticism this book levels against him. Aloysius acknowledges that the Gandhian era (1920-1947) of the national movement was multi-class and mass-based. It gained politico-moral legitimacy and achieved enormous power. The author proposes five factors that elevated the image of Gandhi as an ‘event’ or phenomenon, which are a) Congress which was symbiotically related to Gandhi b) the colonial rulers who magnified the Gandhi image c) the support of Gujarati and Marwari communities d) private army of ashram members and volunteers who provided a spiritualist aura to what Gandhi said and did and e) multiplicity of local interpretations of the Gandhian national message. Gandhi functioned as an intra-party dictator and demanded absolute loyalty from other members. His constructive programs, such as eradication of untouchability, were cul-de-sacs that diverted the attention of lower caste reformers and channelled their energy away from the national movement. This is alleged to have helped ensure upper caste monopoly of the new power structure that was emerging with the British exit. Gandhi offered religion to the lower caste masses and politics for the upper caste nationalists. Aloysius never stops to answer the obvious question of why then, did a Brahmin shot him dead. By adopting khilafat and anti-untouchability programs as separate effort for the communities, the author claims that Gandhi destroyed the unity that was developing between the lower castes and Muslims.
Though the purpose of this book is to destroy or prevent whatever unity exists among Hindu communities. He attempts this by harping on the refrain that upper castes still continue to wreak any social improvements. The author considers the lower caste leaders to be not worthy enough to fight the upper castes on their own strength. Incompetence of lower castes is a recurring theme in this work that crops up at several places in the narrative. In fact, it is the narrative. His temerity to downgrade luminaries such as Jotiba Phule, Sri Narayana Guru, E V Ramaswamy Naicker and B R Ambedkar is galling. He does so with the comment that ‘though these people articulated against the cultural nationalism of dominant castes, since ideological articulation was not the forte of subaltern people, the writings and speeches of their spokesmen are not to be taken as the sole source from which to interpret the subaltern weltanschauung’ (p.146). In short, this is like saying “you are good for nothing; but don’t worry, we’ll do your work for you”. This author seems not to have encountered even one of Ambedkar’s works which are brilliantly argued with logic and backed by facts. It was not for nothing that he was trained in constitutional law! Aloysius’ subtle hint to the subaltern people is to wait for a messiah to arise from among the liberals. Probably he fancies himself for this role? Otherwise, they will forever by branded with the oppressed identity and myopic view which can’t see past their communal framework. Aloysius’ evil intent is discernible at another place in which he declares that the ‘golden age of Paraiahs was the eighteenth century when Brahmins and respectable people were murdered in their beds and chased by marauding armies’ (p.32). This does not mean that the Paraiahs did it, but suggests that since the Brahmins suffered, the lower castes enjoyed it. This is nothing short of an evil attempt to perpetuate caste rivalry. Rajiv Malhotra’s comments in ‘Breaking India’ (reviewed earlier here) are noteworthy in this context. Malhotra proves that Leftists and neo-colonial scholars strike at every fault line in Hindu society in an attempt to forestall unity of purpose among the various communities comprising it.
This book by G. Aloysius is nothing but an unalloyed long polemic not only against Indian cultural nationalism but against our entire politico-social norms as well. This brings to mind Macaulay’s quote that the real purpose of colonial education in India is to ‘create a people Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, opinions, morals and intellect’. Reading this book of unabashed eurocentrism, readers wonder not that the author is Macaulay’s child, but his clone! Recently, a British financial journalist remarked that ‘it can often seem a triumph that India exists at all’. It is indeed so, if you pause to observe that spiteful scholars such as this one are continuously chipping away at the foundations of the Indian nation and society with their classist falsehoods. What the author accepts as reliable are quotes from Marx and missionaries only. Some of the corrosive remarks found in the book may be listed below. This list is not comprehensive.
a) India’s centralizing state is armed to the teeth against its own people (p.2)
b) Pan-Indian polity no longer attracts the allegiance of the majority of the masses (p.2)
c) The cleavage within the hierarchical, pre-modern Indian society are at least as important a contradiction as the cleavage between the Indian and the British (p.18)
d) India’s nationalism is merely a tactical cover up for individual and group pursuit of power, position and profit (p.96)
The book is full of heavy academic jargon and is a burden to read. The author’s condescending attitude to the subaltern people and the air of being their all-knowing guide who knows their things better than them is irritating as well as illogical. Altogether, the reading experience was a waste of time.
Aloysius starts with a rhetorical observation that pan-Indian nationalism is elitist, false and insensitive to regional variations. Caste system and its ideology permeated the entire region as the clearest form of hierarchical structuring of society. Brahmins and other upper castes dominated all others and maintained hegemony in the unchanging rural landscape. This was upheld by the political power, both native as well as imperialist. Despite the rise and fall of dynasties and change in political boundaries, the social order remained stable as a ‘universalized norm of custom and tradition’. Resistance to this order was also part and parcel of the tradition from the beginning. The Brahminic system was resisted by heterodox sects like ajivikas and shramanas in the ancient period and sects such as Vira Shaivism, Sikhism and Kabirpanth in medieval times. Contrary to the nationalist claim that the British occupation messed up the natural societal order, Aloysius absolves the imperialists of any such responsibility. The British did not and could not effect any serious change in Indian society and the old order won in the end (p.34).
The book then makes some serious audit of the British Raj in the nineteenth century. It claims that the British only wanted to ensure sufficient revenue for themselves and enjoined the upper castes to be a part of the governing structure. Colonial rule only strengthened the existing caste hierarchy by channelling it into the newly created power machinery. Entering the bureaucracy was through modern education which was monopolized by upper castes. There was no change in agrarian relations too as the government chose not to intervene in social issues. Lower caste movements took part in nation-making at this point by fighting for the concepts of equal social rights leading to citizenship, mass literacy and social-spatial mobility as a new principle of social life. Jotiba Phule elaborated the ideology of Dravidian origin to counter the prevalent Aryan theory of race among Brahmins (p.61). Here the author forgets to mention that the Aryan invasion hypothesis was invented by the British and not the Brahmins. By pushing in the concept of race with this false statement, Aloysius makes an outrageous assessment that the birth and growth of Indian nationalist movement was tinged with racist sentiments and overtones (p.94) thereby making it palatable to his European audience. The 1857 rebellion is said to be based on antagonism with the British largely based on race, religion and colour. In fact, this trope is first introduced in the preface itself which claims that discussions of nationalism in India ranged between sheer xenophobia and ‘sacred patriotism’. This is totally wrong and against the Indian spirit of toleration and assimilation which was never xenophobic. Aloysius seems to be confusing xenophobia with self-defence against foreign invaders.
The book makes a critical study of the religions in India and identifies Hinduism as the root and sole cause of the nation’s backwardness and social oppression. However, in order to appear objective, he cleverly calls it Brahminism when it suits him and goes all out in criticising it. He vacuously asserts that other religions such as Christianity, Islam and Buddhism are egalitarian but Brahminism alone was exploitative. He enthusiastically lauds the missionaries and evangelists since “the evangelists were ferocious in their attack on the inegalitarian nature of social Hinduism” (p.47). Aloysius suggests religious conversion as a way to gain strength and respect for the lower castes. As an illustration, he claims that “Shanar movement [in Kerala and Tamil Nadu] gained additional strength through mass conversions to Christianity in their civil disabilities” (p.56). If the Shanars turned en masse to Christianity, they were no longer Shanars as per caste custom. The author drops an unintended hint that these people continued to be looked upon with their previous caste identity even after conversion. Aloysius then proudly lists conversion to Christianity as a good alternative to ‘caste slavery’ and fumes at those who call the converts ‘rice Christians’ (p.70).
The burning issue in the years leading to independence in 1947 was whether Hindus and Muslims constituted two distinct nations who cannot cohabit together. A lot of heated discourse and human blood flowed to finally settle this issue by partitioning the country. In this context, it is astonishing that Aloysius has totally ignored this point in this work on ‘creating the Indian nation’. Apart from some half-hearted comments on the Muslim elite creating a constituency of their own, this book skirts this crucial subject. The reason is only too obvious. Like all Leftist scholars, he doesn’t want to invite the ire of Islamists and thereby forego their patronage. Instead, he clubs Muslims along with Dalits and other lower castes and depicts them as equally suffering from the atrocities of the upper castes. This leads him to suggest harmony and alliance between them and the lower castes which forces him to invent excuses when such camaraderie was not actually seen anywhere in practice. The Nama Shudras and Muslims were said to be allies in East Bengal against the higher castes. However, in communal riots which frequently occurred, the Nama Shudras were at the receiving end of the violence along with the upper castes in equal measure. Aloysius lightens this contradiction with the remark that it was only the result of ‘near-equal communities competing for the same set of opportunities’ (p.65). But when Kshatriya landlords attacked Noniyas who were their tenants, it was not a local landlord-tenant issue, but an example of caste oppression (p.66). The author also narrates some lofty daydreams on Muslim political awakening. The deprivation caused by the new dispensation of power in favour of upper caste Hindus led to the birth of Muslim nationalism. This author never suspects Muslim exclusivism or plain religious fanaticism behind it. In fact, the alliance between Muslims and the lower castes was only a temporarily prudent strategy to dent the numerical superiority of Hindus and to divide and weaken them further. The so-called upper caste ideology talked about the nation and not about religion, but the author castigates it to be communal. On the other hand, the Muslim demand for Pakistan was openly based on religion but Aloysius finds true national spirit there which was antagonized by Hindu separatism. The Moplah riot of 1921 in Malabar which was an ethnic cleansing of Hindus is presented as an agrarian rebellion in which ‘the polluted castes were spared as a rule while murderous attacks were against oppressive upper castes’ (p.88). Apart from the moral question of justifying violence directed against a community on ideological grounds for being ‘oppressors’, this statement is totally false. There were numerous instances in the riots in which lower castes were also targeted (see my review of Beyond Rampage: West Asian Contacts of Malabar and Khilafat here for more details on this).
Aloysius’ theory of the birth of Indian nationalism can be condensed in a nutshell: the upper castes devised it to maintain their monopoly on state power when the ‘benign’ British gradually began to accommodate the interests of the lower castes. When the share of land revenue in national income dwindled in the 1870s, the British extended protective measures, education and employment to lower castes. Resentment on this count caused the germination of nationalism. Aloysius wastes no opportunity to drive a wedge between the upper and lower castes of Hinduism and to destroy the very fabric of Indian society in the resultant conflagration he thirsts to witness. In response to the British challenge on upper caste monopoly of power, they introduced reforms and revival of the Brahminical ideology. This helped it to settle on reincarnating itself as pan-Indian political-national Hinduism. This provided a context for the politico-economic interests of the same social forces to transform itself as nationalism. By the term ‘they’, the author means Brahmins and a small circle of upper castes centred around them. Moreover, cultural nationalism was constructed in India by the deep commitment and contribution of imperialist and orientalist scholarship (p.135). With this statement, Aloysius transfers the credit for creating nationalism back to the British and alleges that India’s national leaders were afraid of the masses they were supposed to be leading. Due to this mortal fright of the masses, they sought British protection from them (p.117). This set of conclusions is natural as most of the sources and references of this book’s research are colonial scholars. It is true that there was reaction from Orthodox sections against the concept of equality extended to oppressed castes. This does not include the core group of nationalism. But Aloysius maliciously club them together to claim that all of them worked to sabotage the concept of equal rights to subaltern people.
Gandhi’s devotees would cringe with unease at the level of criticism this book levels against him. Aloysius acknowledges that the Gandhian era (1920-1947) of the national movement was multi-class and mass-based. It gained politico-moral legitimacy and achieved enormous power. The author proposes five factors that elevated the image of Gandhi as an ‘event’ or phenomenon, which are a) Congress which was symbiotically related to Gandhi b) the colonial rulers who magnified the Gandhi image c) the support of Gujarati and Marwari communities d) private army of ashram members and volunteers who provided a spiritualist aura to what Gandhi said and did and e) multiplicity of local interpretations of the Gandhian national message. Gandhi functioned as an intra-party dictator and demanded absolute loyalty from other members. His constructive programs, such as eradication of untouchability, were cul-de-sacs that diverted the attention of lower caste reformers and channelled their energy away from the national movement. This is alleged to have helped ensure upper caste monopoly of the new power structure that was emerging with the British exit. Gandhi offered religion to the lower caste masses and politics for the upper caste nationalists. Aloysius never stops to answer the obvious question of why then, did a Brahmin shot him dead. By adopting khilafat and anti-untouchability programs as separate effort for the communities, the author claims that Gandhi destroyed the unity that was developing between the lower castes and Muslims.
Though the purpose of this book is to destroy or prevent whatever unity exists among Hindu communities. He attempts this by harping on the refrain that upper castes still continue to wreak any social improvements. The author considers the lower caste leaders to be not worthy enough to fight the upper castes on their own strength. Incompetence of lower castes is a recurring theme in this work that crops up at several places in the narrative. In fact, it is the narrative. His temerity to downgrade luminaries such as Jotiba Phule, Sri Narayana Guru, E V Ramaswamy Naicker and B R Ambedkar is galling. He does so with the comment that ‘though these people articulated against the cultural nationalism of dominant castes, since ideological articulation was not the forte of subaltern people, the writings and speeches of their spokesmen are not to be taken as the sole source from which to interpret the subaltern weltanschauung’ (p.146). In short, this is like saying “you are good for nothing; but don’t worry, we’ll do your work for you”. This author seems not to have encountered even one of Ambedkar’s works which are brilliantly argued with logic and backed by facts. It was not for nothing that he was trained in constitutional law! Aloysius’ subtle hint to the subaltern people is to wait for a messiah to arise from among the liberals. Probably he fancies himself for this role? Otherwise, they will forever by branded with the oppressed identity and myopic view which can’t see past their communal framework. Aloysius’ evil intent is discernible at another place in which he declares that the ‘golden age of Paraiahs was the eighteenth century when Brahmins and respectable people were murdered in their beds and chased by marauding armies’ (p.32). This does not mean that the Paraiahs did it, but suggests that since the Brahmins suffered, the lower castes enjoyed it. This is nothing short of an evil attempt to perpetuate caste rivalry. Rajiv Malhotra’s comments in ‘Breaking India’ (reviewed earlier here) are noteworthy in this context. Malhotra proves that Leftists and neo-colonial scholars strike at every fault line in Hindu society in an attempt to forestall unity of purpose among the various communities comprising it.
This book by G. Aloysius is nothing but an unalloyed long polemic not only against Indian cultural nationalism but against our entire politico-social norms as well. This brings to mind Macaulay’s quote that the real purpose of colonial education in India is to ‘create a people Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, opinions, morals and intellect’. Reading this book of unabashed eurocentrism, readers wonder not that the author is Macaulay’s child, but his clone! Recently, a British financial journalist remarked that ‘it can often seem a triumph that India exists at all’. It is indeed so, if you pause to observe that spiteful scholars such as this one are continuously chipping away at the foundations of the Indian nation and society with their classist falsehoods. What the author accepts as reliable are quotes from Marx and missionaries only. Some of the corrosive remarks found in the book may be listed below. This list is not comprehensive.
a) India’s centralizing state is armed to the teeth against its own people (p.2)
b) Pan-Indian polity no longer attracts the allegiance of the majority of the masses (p.2)
c) The cleavage within the hierarchical, pre-modern Indian society are at least as important a contradiction as the cleavage between the Indian and the British (p.18)
d) India’s nationalism is merely a tactical cover up for individual and group pursuit of power, position and profit (p.96)
The book is full of heavy academic jargon and is a burden to read. The author’s condescending attitude to the subaltern people and the air of being their all-knowing guide who knows their things better than them is irritating as well as illogical. Altogether, the reading experience was a waste of time.
The book is not recommended.
Rating: 1 Star
