There are numerous divergent views regarding the exact interpretation of the term "nation". Some are of the opinion that the inhabitants of a particular state form a nation. Even if the terms "state" and "country" are taken to be synonymous, the controversy over "nation" does not end. Some people hold the view that the structure of a nation depends on language. Others are of the opinion that the foundation of a nation depends on one or more than one factor from among the following: similar manners and customs, similar mode of living, similar traditions, racial similarity, religious similarity, etc. But practical experience does not indicate that these factors are especially important.
Indians, Pakistanis and Burmese were once the indigenous population of the same political unit, the country of India, but they failed to constitute a nation. Linguistic similarity is not an essential factor in forming a nation. If it had been, the English-speaking people of America would not have formed a separate American nation in cooperation with the French- and Spanish-speaking people, outside the British Empire. If language were the only basis of forming a nation, Switzerland would have split up into three or four parts. The German-speaking people would have wanted to merge their area into Germany, separating it from Switzerland, and would have taken pride in introducing themselves as members of the German nation. Similarly, the French- and Italian-speaking people would have wanted to annex their areas to France and Italy. But this did not happen.
The Swiss are a nation with four official languages German, French, Italian and Romansch. Likewise, the French- speaking people of Belgium prefer to look upon them- selves as a Belgian nation and not as a French nation.
Only recently the people of West Bengal expressed their eagerness to reside in India as Indian nationals, and the people of East Bengal* supported Pakistan and declared themselves Pakistanis, though both of them spoke the same language Bengali. They did not demand an independent Bangalistan on the basis of the Bengali language; no, they did not even like to introduce themselves as Bengali nationals. The common people did not attach any importance to the Suharwardy-Sarat Bose formula of Bangalistan (United Socialist Bengal)**.
- *There was no independent Bangaldesh when the author had given this discourse. The present Bangladesh then was called as East Pakistan.
- **Bengal was partitioned for the second time when India gained independence from the British. Dr. Suharwardy and Sarat Bose, prominent Muslim and Hindu leaders respectively, proposed the formation of a United Socialist Bengal to counter the threat of partition. The proposal was subsequently rejected by their respective political parties, and Bengal was partitioned in 1947. Eds.
There is little difference between Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking people regarding manners and customs. Concerning language, there is very little difference between Spanish and Portuguese. The manners and customs in almost all the countries of Western Europe are practically the same; still they are not one nation. In the past, to save the prestige of their respective nations, they fought many sanguinary battles among themselves. On the other hand, the Welsh-speaking people take pride in calling themselves British,
though their language, and manners and customs are quite different. The mode of living all over Europe is almost the same, and we find the same thing throughout South Asia (including India and Pakistan), but no one could form a compact nation on the basis of that factor.
The inhabitants of Bengal have an identical tradition; so do the people of the Punjab. There is no difference of tradition between the Jews and the Muslims of Arabia. Still, neither the Bengalis, nor the Punjabis, nor the Jews and the Muslims of Arabia together, could form a nation. Rather, much blood has been shed among them on the basis of religion. There are no racial differences among the inhabitants of Iberia, nor among the Scandinavians, yet they are divided into different nations. The tie of blood could not unite them. Therefore, efforts to establish a nation on the basis of race or blood relations will not always be effective.
If religion had been the only basis for forming a nation, there could not have been more than six or seven nations in the world. Most of Europe, on the whole, would have been divided into two nations Catholics and Protestants. But this has not happened.
How, then, is a nation formed? In reality, a kind of sentiment created either directly or indirectly on the basis of one or more factors such as country, language, religion, etc., plays a vital role in forming a nation. The factors themselves are quite insignificant. It is the sentiment and nothing else that creates a nation.
Let us see if there was such a sentiment at any time in India. That is, let us see whether or not there ever was something in India that could be called a nation. (TO THE PATRIOTS, Ananda Marga Publications, 1960) ......... the be continued
Leave a comment