Amalendu Guha ( Marxian Historian 1924-2015)
From
His EPW Feb 1979 Article
A Nationality is a stable
community of culture, historically evolved within a definite territory, on the
basis of common economic ties and language and , also often with one or more of
other such common factors. A nationality so defined, had in some cases, its
rudimentary beginnings in consolidated most cases, were integrally linked with
the rise of capitalism
It was also a
movement with definite ideology and programme. Basically anti feudal in
character, such national movements tended to culminate establishment of bourgeois
democratic states so that thereon could be an unhindered dev of capitalism on
the basis of widened and protected national markets.
It was thro British colonization
that the ground for similar national movements was prepared in India. The
purpose was to bring India into the orbit of world capitalism so that
exploitation could be intensified.
In India protection of home market against foreign
domination emerged as a slogan. To promote their own interests, these classes
rallied popular support behind them, by exploiting spiritual sentiments based
on a community of culture. This happened both at the regional and AI levels.
Alongside of Indian nationalism one often heard of Bengali , Marathi or
Assamese nationalism as well. These nationalisms sustained and were in turn
sustained by indian people's common struggle against British.
All parts of India
and all Indian nationalities did not come under British rule at one and the
same point of time. Nor were they at the same
stage of socio economic development when they did. This unevenness was
bound to leave its imprint on the manifestation of nationalism at the various
levels, both in terms of chronology and in terms of emotional content and
identity.
Two tracks- Great
nationalisms on AI Plane and little nationalism on a linguistic regional plane.
Great nationalism emerged as the ideology of the nascent pan Indian big bourgeoisie
who wanted an appropriate share of growing india wide home market for
themselves ..They also wanted independent unitary state to secure it....The INC
represented great nationalism in its original undiluted form during 1885-1917
years.
Little nationalism emerged as the ideology of
the region based small bourgeoisie and stood for exclusive control of the
regional markets by their respective middle classes. The concept of unitary national
state was not a suitable ideal for little nationalism. It looked forward a
multi-national state with a federal set up that would guarantee substantial
regional autonomy to each national identity. In its extreme and late form in
exceptional cases little nationalism st0od alternatively even for secession or
dual citizenship and sovereign political status.
How were great and
little nationalisms inter related? In the course of their historical evolution,
they in general moved in unison, continually tending to merge with each other,
but on occasions they also tended to dash
headlong against each other in opposite directions. On the whole in the
anti imperialist struggles they moved in the same direction, and overlapped
each other. thus they got intertwined.
Indian National
movement since 1917 involved a series of compromised between great and little nationalisms
so that all nationalist forces could be consolidated to achieve the common
objective. Gandhi with his concept of linguistic provinces ushered in this
process. The dominant class view on the national question, as a result went
substantial changes in favour of and towards recognition of multi-national
interests both before and after independence.
It was in this
process as worked out above, that castes , tribes and local communities were
being absorbed into larger entities along either of the two above mentioned
tracks. The little nationalities too were imperceptively getting integrated
with a still larger national entity- The Indian nationhood in the making.
In the Indian context
there was and is also a growing understanding that only by eliminating bourgeois
distortions could a basis for true nationalism be found- also that one's
loyalty to regional culture is quite compatible with true nationalism and
internationalism once class exploitation is removed from the scene.
.....there is no administrative
or military short cut to achievement of nationhood. Indian nationalism and the
associated process of state formations are still in the making. Today the
only way to deemphasize the tribal exclusiveness as well as regional
differences in religion, castes and ethnicity is to realise the importance of
cohesion of respective regional communities.
To conclude, India is
a multi- national state which is not dominated by any particular nationality.
No single nationality has an absolute majority in India, so
far as the numerical strength is concerned. No single nationality dominates
all facets of power and influence either. Besides, all nationalities developed
a historic sense of unity in course of common struggles against the British
rule, and they were found keen to retain this sense of unity even after
Independence. In the process of economic transition, hundreds and thousands of
workers from different lingusitic groups became intermingled.
The Indian working
class therefore stands as such above parochial little nationalism as above
aggressive great nationalism. In its conception true nationalism can absorb
what is good in little nationalism and stands also for internationalism. It
stands for indian unity within the multi- national state of India. It looks
forward to a united India organised on the basis of the recognition of Indian multinationality-
federal principles of state organisation with single citizenship and protection
of democratic rights of all national minorities and their languages all over
India, including the right of self determination
(Original draft presented
as seminar paper at Shillong NE Hills Univ on sep 1,2 1978)
Comments
Post a Comment