Description of the Module

Items Description of the Module

Subject Name Sociology

Paper Name Political Sociology

Module Name/Title The Nation and its Fragments

Module Id Module no. 23

Pre Requisites An understanding of theories of nationalism, Foucault’s

conceptualization of power/knowledge binary and governmentality.

Objectives This module seeks to understand the differential nature of the process

of emergence of nationalism in colonial and postcolonial societies.

Key words Nationalism, post-colonialism, governmental logic of state, modernity

Module Structure

The Nation and Its Fragments In this module, we look at the emergence of a nationalist discourse in the colonial context of India and its particular shape in the postcolonial history of the modern state. The aim to be understand the limitations inherent in the western conceptualization of a discourse of nationalist modernity, in grasping the specific conditions of colonial and postcolonial societies.

Role Name Affiliation

Principal Investigator Prof. Sujata Patel Dept. of Sociology,

University of Hyderabad

Paper Coordinator Prof. Edward Rodrigues

Centre for the Study of Social Systems

Jawaharlal Nehru University

Content Writer Shashwati Centre for Political Studies Jawaharlal

Nehru University

Content Reviewer Prof. Edward Rodrigues Centre for the Study of Social Systems

Jawaharlal Nehru University

Language Editor Prof. Edward Rodrigues Centre for the Study of Social Systems

Jawaharlal Nehru University

Political Sociology

The Nation and Its Fragments

1. Introduction

Partha Chatterjee elaborates on the particular variety of nationalism(s) as it emerged in

different colonial contexts of Africa and Asia. With its roots in anti-colonial struggles in

most cases, the discourse of nationalism in the so-called Third world is conspicuous by

its distinct nature, especially in its divergence from the established discourse of

nationalism in the West that emerged since the sixteenth century. In highlighting the

distinct nature of postcolonial nationalism, the main intention of Chatterjee is to

deconstruct the supposedly universal model of nationalism (of a Western European

variety) that is assumed to hold true for all nations alike, which however, refuses to

accommodate and acknowledge the differential histories of coming-into-being of

nationalisms in different parts of the world. Chatterjee begins his narrative of

postcolonial nationalism in India with a critique of Benedict Anderson’s version of the

idea of nation and nationalism as an ‘imagined’ community, which acquires a concrete

shape through certain institutions, especially that of ‘print capitalism’. According to

Anderson, the historical development of nationalisms in Western Europe, the US and

Russia serve as modular forms for rest of the world to choose from, especially for the

newly independent nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America following the period of

decolonization and democratization in 1940s-50s. According to Chatterjee, the specific

discourse of nationalism as it developed in the West, with attendant ideas of modernity,

development and progress, cannot be delinked from its colonizing propensity that

becomes explicit in the context of the so-called Third World. Therefore, the universal

model of nationalism as it emerged in the West signifying the onset of modernity cannot

but be a hegemonic discourse. It’s unfolding in the nations of Asia and Africa highlights

stories of not just colonial exploitation, but also that of a discursive colonization,

whereby political imaginations and possibilities of recovery and development in the

newly independent nations remained entangled within the webs of such a hegemonic

discourse.

2. The ‘material’ and ‘spiritual’ of anti-colonial nationalism

Partha Chatterjee’s reading of postcolonial nationalism in the context of India proceeds

with a critique of conventional histories that trace the beginning of nationalism with the

formation of Indian National Congress in 1885. In such accounts, nationalism is reduced

to being a mere struggle for political power. The institutional history of coming into

being of Congress party and its gradual ascendance to power covers the history of

emergence of nationalism in India and also remains the determining feature of anti-

colonial struggle in the country. In contrast, Chatterjee’s own reading of history of

nationalism rests on a principle which, according to him, forms basis to the distinct way

in which the nationalist discourse takes shape in the specific history of a colonial country

like India. According to him, articulation of anti-colonial nationalism rests on a division

or separation between two distinct spheres, namely, the spiritual and the material. The

material realm is one of economy, statecraft, science and technology, in which the

superiority of the West, represented by the colonial power, is an established fact. In the

material domain therefore, the historical task before the colonized was to imitate and

reproduce for itself, the benefits of the project of colonial enlightenment and modernity.

The spiritual realm on the other hand, represented true sovereignty of the colonized. It

was a sphere of cultural distinctness from, and also superiority over, the colonizers of the

colonized people, and hence needed to be preserved that way. If the material sphere

represented the superiority of the colonial rulers, it was the spiritual domain which was

the main source of strength and autonomy of the colonized. Therefore, the spiritual

domain was one that needed to be preserved from all colonial encroachments. As was

evident, beyond a brief phase of enthusiasm on the part of the Indian social reformers for

British-initiated reforms in the customs and institutions of traditional society in India, the

latter half of the nineteenth century saw a vocal resistance against any action of the

colonial state to intervene in the ‘cultural traditions’ of the native people. This, according

to Chatterjee, symbolized nationalism among the colonized people. It effectively meant

that not only the colonial state was sought to be kept out of the spiritual or inner domain,

but also that any kind of reforms or intervention in the said domain would be completely

in the hands of the colonized masses. Therefore the essence of the ‘imagined’ nation

rested in the so-called spiritual or inner domain in which the colonized masses were

sovereign despite being ruled by an alien, foreign power in the material sphere.

The historic task before the nationalists was to preserve the sovereignty of their spiritual

or inner domain, while at the same time, to re-fashion it to fit the need of the changing

times, that is, they sought to reform and recreate the national culture to make it ‘modern’

in all respects. Visible efforts on the part of the nationalists were to produce a ‘modern’

national culture, which was yet prominent in its difference from the colonial culture by

being rooted in indigenous traditions and values. Therefore, nationalism manifested itself

in the spiritual domain in a completely different way than its course in the material

domain where it increasingly sought to be like the colonizers. In the remaining chapters

of the book, Chatterjee traces the history of nationalism- through examples from history

of colonial Bengal- as it charts a particular course in its efforts to reform the different

aspects of the so-called spiritual or inner domain. These different aspects of cultural

domain include that of language and literature, education, and family which the

nationalists sought to modify to make them in tune with the requirements of the modern

world. European influence on the Indian social reformers in each of these cases was

visible enough. However, the social reformers including the nationalists embarked on a

historical project to assert and establish their cultural differences with the West and prove

at the same time through necessary reforms, their own capabilities to determine their

future by fashioning a modern self for the nation.

Chatterjee cautions us against reducing the dual scheme of material and the spiritual to

being merely indicative of any kind of exceptionalism as far as Indian nationalism is

concerned. Rather, he insists that the respective histories of development of the two

domains of material and spiritual must be perceived in their mutuality to understand the

nationalist discourse in India. A nationalist historiography in the Indian context must take

into consideration the intertwined geneses of both spheres; each sphere posed as a

limitation as well as cast an impact on the other, determining it particular shape. The

project of modern politics introduced by the British in the colonial sphere had to

negotiate with and accord concession to the inner, cultural politics of the nationalists to

produce consent. Likewise, the ‘inner’ domain of subaltern politics had to readapt to the

institutional mechanisms introduced by the colonial rule in the elite or material domain.

This interaction between the two domains of politics is a characteristic feature of

postcolonial nationalism and has deep implications for the perceived universality of the

Western concept of nationalism. It also provides for a deeper analysis of the role played

by colonialism in the modern regime of power. Far from being a mere tangential question

to the discourse of power in modern times, colonialism is deeply implicated in way in

which modern forms of power manifest themselves in different historical contexts.

Therefore, a nationalist historiography which links the end of colonialism with

displacement of political rule of the foreign power is an incomplete one. The historical

narrative of unfolding of modernity in the context of India is a story of continued

colonization, a product of modern regime of power.

3. Rule of colonial difference as modern disciplinary power

Chatterjee’s analysis is influenced by Michel Foucault’s reading of modern concept of

power; by this scheme, power is productive or facilitative rather than being prohibitive.

Modern technologies and institutions of power rule not by being restrictive; rather, they

aim to normalize social regulations to guide or enable self-disciplining among subjects.

Instead of being prohibitive, modern power reconfigures the social environment in order

to guide and affect conduct of the inhabitants of that environment. According to Partha

Chatterjee, colonialism in the context of countries of Asia and Africa was the main

channel through which the disciplinary power of the modern state was exercised. It is

through the rule of colonial difference that the foreign rule maintained its power and also

produced consent for its rule. Rule of colonial difference implied that modern institutions

of self-representation and democracy could not be replicated in a society like that of

India, rooted as it was in deep-rooted hierarchies based caste and religion which made it

naturally unsuited to democratic organization and functioning. That the otherwise

universal principles and institutions of democracy and self-governance could not be

applied to the Indian context, was seen as an inevitable outcome of an inherently

backward, superstitious and authoritarian society in India. Therefore, the colonial powers

in India saw their primary task as being limited only to the administration of the country,

and ensuring welfare of the people, and professedly disowned the task of educating the

masses in liberal democratic politics. As a consequence, the colonial rule managed to

establish its difference from the colonized society, and needless to say, race as a category

became crucial to the articulation of that essential divide between the colonizers and the

colonized. Superiority of the colonial rulers as against the inherent backwardness of the

colonized society was affirmed by racial differences between the two broad communities.

The established rule of colonial difference had a more profound role to play in the

colonial scheme of things. It’s more important contribution was to accord legitimacy to

the grand exercise of modern colonial state to survey, classify and enumerate its subject

populations. On the pretext of knowing better the society that was meant to be ruled,

modern colonial state strived to gather as much information about the colonized terrain.

All the information gathered systematically through scientific ways, formed basis to

codification of laws, and it was this access to knowledge that was a source of power for

the colonial rulers. The link between knowledge and power here cannot be

overemphasized because it was owing to its prerogative in classifying and enumerating

the colonial society that the colonial rulers managed to cast an order on it, one that served

their interests and was in their control. This particular modality of governance by the

modern colonial state was facilitated by rule of colonial difference which affirmed the

disciplinary hold of colonial state over the colonized society. It was through rule of

colonial difference that the access of Indians to fair recruitment in colonial bureaucracy,

freedom of press, and public opinion was denied. A society considered not fit for a

responsible democratic system could find no use for its institutions as well.

4. Nationalist Response as an Act in Self-discipline

What was the response of the nationalists to the growing intervention of the colonial

rulers? The universality of modern regime and institutions of power, howsoever imposed,

was acknowledged by the nationalists in the material sphere and they were vehemently

opposed to rule of colonial difference which they saw as an assault on that universality.

Therefore, nationalist politics was aimed at removing any kind of difference between the

colonizers and the colonized in the outer domain of politics. Nationalist resistance to the

dominance of the colonizers in the material sphere was deemed possible only by fulfilling

the lack in self, that is, by equipping oneself with the superior techniques of the

colonizers as far as material life was concerned. This relation of subordination of the

nationalists in the material sphere was complemented by a relation of dominance in the

cultural sphere. The cultural realm was the domain of sovereignty for the nationalists

which they increasingly sought to keep out of the reach of any kind of colonial

intervention. Therefore, it from within the inner or spiritual domain of indigenous

culture- radically different from that of the colonizers’- that the nationalists derived an

autonomous agency or subjectivity that was articulated as key form of resistance to the

corrupting influences of colonial modernity.

Chatterjee’s insightful intervention is that the hegemonic project of nationalism in

colonial context of India was based on mediation between these two spheres, which

exposed both its possibilities and limits. The historic task to prove that the colonized

were not the ‘inferior other’ as projected by the rule of colonial difference, took the

nationalists to ‘modernize’ themselves in the material sphere. In contrast, the cultural or

spiritual essence of the nation needed to be preserved in its pristine and distinctive form,

precisely because it was the source of self-identity of the nation. This led the nationalists,

as Chatterjee says, to selectively appropriate aspects of western modernity, based on the

ideological premise that modernity of the west must be tamed so as to retain the essence

of national culture. The process of construction of a national culture that was both

‘modern’ and ‘Indian’ at the same time was an act in self-disciplining, that is, an

internalization of the disciplinary element of the modern regime of power. The

nationalists took upon themselves to reform and modernize aspects of cultural sphere to

make them suitable for modern times. Therefore in complex ways, the outer and inner,

material and spiritual, public and private corresponded to give shape to the hegemonic

project of nationalism in postcolonial society in India.

5. Nationalist Construction of a Historical Past: Role of the Colonized middle classes

Partha Chatterjee calls the project of nationalism as the project of mediation in which the

historic leadership was provided by the colonial middle classes in Bengal. The ideology

of nationalism, including its dominant cultural form and institutions, were fashioned by

the enlightened intervention of the modernizing middle classes. Trained in the modern-

day language of legal constitutionalism and new forms of public discourse, the middle

classes adapted themselves to principles of modern government and political

mobilization. As citizens in a modern society exposed to western education and with

access to bureaucratic apparatus, the middle classes called for eradicating rule of colonial

difference which in itself made a mockery of principles of liberal democratic order. In

this way, the emergent nationalism in the political domain, led by the middle classes, put

faith in the modern regime of power and internalized it to cull out a modern public image

for itself. By contrast, in the sovereign sphere of culture, the colonized middle classes, as

script-writers of the nationalist discourse, had a completely different role to play. As said

earlier, the nationalists had to reformulate the inner cultural domain of nation as per the

requirements set by the new, modern times. Such a nationalist endeavor began with

recreating a past for the country, especially in form of a written history. History-writing

was pressed into service to lend credence to the nationalist project of building up a

nationalist culture that was indigenous (that is, one based on traditional values, different

from that of the west) yet modern. Such history-writing, on one hand, recreated a past by,

what Chatterjee terms as, a classicization of tradition. Traditional values symbolizing the

essence of an indigenous culture were invoked, in turn making them timeless and

indispensable to the history of the nation. On the other hand, during the course of history-

writing, the nation’s past was divested of all the undesirable values, both in terms of form

and content, that reflected its un-modern status, Therefore, the past of the nation was

codified via- to use Chatterjee’s expression- an appropriation of the popular that is, by

including those values and beliefs that naturally existed in the indigenous

tradition/culture of the country, and which remained unsullied by dictates of ruthless

reason. At the same time, the process of history-writing was itself a disciplinary process

whereby the past of the nation was reproduced in a way to accord it a normalized status.

All negative aspects like vulgarity, coarseness, localism, sectarianism, sexualized

femininity associated with the traditional culture of society in India were sought to be

eradicated from the new codified nationalist history of the country. It is not surprising

then that the nation’s history was built on the identity of an ‘Indian’ tradition that was

explicitly Hindu. All rival traditions like Buddhism, Jainism were appropriated within the

recreated Hindu fold by virtue of being born in the same country, and this incorporation

reflected the element of ‘syncretism’ of Indian tradition. Islam, as a contending classical

tradition, was ‘otherized’ as being of a foreign origin during the course of construction of

a nationalist past.

6. National Project and the Woman’s question

For the nationalists, woman’s question was firmly positioned within the autonomous

cultural realm that was the basis of self-identity of the nation. To repeat an earlier point,

the nationalists had no option other than to accept the dominance of modernity in the

material or outer sphere. It was in the spiritual or inner realm that nationalists assumed

sovereignty from any external domination, and this was precisely because East was

considered superior to the West in spiritual terms. The duality between the material and

spiritual found corresponding references in dichotomies of inner and outer or home and

the world. Family- as opposed to the outer world which was subject to vagaries of

material reality- was seen as a private realm that embodied one’s true identity; it was

reflective of one’s autonomous self. This source of self-identity needed to be preserved

against encroachments by forces of modernity. If the colonized could not escape being

hegemonized by modernity of the west in outer material domain, they had to do so

without compromising on their true, autonomous identity in the spiritual realm. The

complex dialectic between the material and spiritual led to a division of social space into

home and outside world, with corresponding gender roles and a sexual division of labor.

Women as belonging to the essential space of the home, were the repository of values of

the inner, essential cultural sphere. The question of family, its space within the

hegemonic discourse of the nation, the corresponding role of the woman within the

family and simultaneously towards nation-building, her education etc were some

questions that need to be located against this complex exchange between the material and

spiritual worlds. By relegating the question of women within the inner realm of culture,

the nationalists managed to depoliticize it, that is, as Chatterjee says, the nationalists

refused to see women’s question as holding any value in terms of political negotiation

with the colonial state. Resolution, if any, of the so-called women’s question was to be

found only by the nationalists, and that too in keeping with framework of the traditional

values of the indigenous culture. Therefore Chatterjee notes a distinct reluctance on the

part of nationalists and social reformers by the end of nineteenth century, to allow any

colonial intervention in matters of socio-cultural reforms, and especially ones related to

position of women in colonized society.

For the colonizers, the inferior status of women in colonized society was reflective of the

inherent barbarism of traditional culture of the colonized. With the self-assumed role of

imparting ‘civilization’ to the subject population, the British were able to bring to light

the oppressive nature of social customs of the colonized, and also drew justification for

their hold over colonial society on the pretext of reforming the latter by introducing a

proper framework of procedural law and rational methods of governance. The nationalists

on their part saw any effort on the part of colonial rulers to introduce reforms in matters

of indigenous culture as an assault on their private autonomous sphere constituting

essential identity of the nation. As per the nationalist agenda, therefore, the chief question

was concerning the role and conduct of women in changing conditions of the modern

world. For both nationalists and the colonialists, the question concerning the status of

women was much beyond than what was evident at first instance: it was a question of

political confrontation between a colonial state and the so-called ‘traditions’ of a

colonized nation, and this largely determined the stance with which each sought to

resolve women’s issues.

According to Chatterjee, the approach of the nationalists towards resolution of women’s

question was one that was based on selective modernization. Selective modernization led

to a new patriarchy that was based on reinvention of tradition, and it did not lead to any

substantial transformation in the lives of women of middle class families. For example,

education was encouraged because it enabled cultural refinement in women and helped

them to fulfill their duties within the families in a better way. Women as embodiment of

cultural values of the nation were endowed with the responsibility to keep intact the

sanctity and purity of the inner spiritual realm while men braced themselves to withstand

the assaults of forces of modernity in outer realm of politics and economy.

7. Nation and its inescapable ‘other’

The unfolding of the universal narrative of modern state in India was far from being a

smooth process. Certain inescapable conditions posed as hindrances in its smooth

transition. The conceptualization of a singular ‘national’ community had to look for ways

to deal with pre-existing forms of communities and consciousness that existed among the

colonized subject populations. Peasantry as a community- and often a rebellious one- was

a specific problem which made their absorption in the nationalist anti-colonial struggle

ever important. Peasantry as backward, superstitious and ignorant, unsuited to the

dynamics of modern times was a perception shared by the colonizers and nationalists

alike. Likewise, the identity of the class of peasantry as the trouble-maker because of its

rebellious nature was another image internalized by both the colonialists and nationalists.

Then there was the question of caste. Caste as a marker of the so-called traditional society

in India, represented hierarchy, rigidity and backwardness, which threatened to deny the

country, opportunities of modern self-governance. This was a widely held belief of the

colonizers on the basis of which they justified their on hold over colonial India. For the

nationalists, it was only proper to deny that caste was a core feature of Indian society.

However, it was the institution of caste that made the Indian society essentially different

form the West, and in such a perception, caste as an ideal system based on functional

division of labor that brought order and stability in society was stressed upon. According

to Chatterjee, both positions of the nationalists concerning the caste question were well

placed within the framework of modernity; liberal equality entrenched within bourgeois

modernity called for a condemnation of oppressive caste practices, while the latter

position maintained that caste in its ideal form was not incompatible with principles of

universal modernity. The institution of caste as contributing to maintaining unity and

stability of social order is, in the words of Chatterjee, a synthetic theory of caste.

Synthetic theories of caste naturalize the condition of relation of dominance and

subordination that constitute the principle of hierarchy between numerous castes. By

stressing instead upon the ideology of dharma which determines the unity of mutual

separateness and mutual dependence between jatis, such theories enable a continued

reproduction of the caste system. The construction of a nationalist culture on basis of

such synthetic theories of caste, according to Chatterjee, turns its back against an

immanent critique of caste, which renders futile even formal recourse offered by the legal

framework of bourgeois freedom and equal rights.

As far as the question of peasantry was concerned, the importance of appropriating the

peasantry for rendering a mass appeal to the nationalist movement was recognized more

than ever. However, the structure of peasant politics was way different from that of

nationalist politics, which made such appropriation a difficult process for the nationalists.

Peasant politics as the ‘other’ of the formal realm of national politics with roots in

bourgeois institutional framework, often posed as a challenge before the latter. Therefore,

the nationalists in their approach to the peasants were no different from the colonizers:

the peasants were turned into ‘objects’ of their strategies, with no voice or agency of their

own. This meant that as the peasants were sought to be appropriated within the new

discourse of the nation, they were sheared off any consciousness of their own; any kind

of mobilization among the peasantry was relegated to the cultural sphere, lacking

organization and sense of politics. Peasants were persistently approached by the

nationalists as the population that needs to be controlled and led, even if as a part of anti-

colonial movement. This partly grew out of a deep-rooted sense of suspicion and distrust

that the nationalist leadership harbored for the peasantry, supposedly ignorant and

backward as they seemed to the former. The contours of the domain of bourgeois politics

as adopted by the modernizing elite failed to grasp the specifics of peasant politics and

consciousness. Therefore, as Chatterjee says, the historical narrative of modernity, and

that of the modern state, refused to see the peasantry as active subject of history which

placed considerable challenges before both colonial and nationalist historiographies by its

forms of action and consciousness. The coming into being of a nation in the Indian

context, involved a politics whereby the domain of politics of the peasants was kept

invisible and detached from the concrete political processes, and hence denied any

historical subjectivity.

Chatterjee concludes by saying that the postcolonial state in India remains caught up in a

kind of discursive colonization, in terms that it has completely internalized the logic of

governmental logic of the modern colonial state.