Imagined communities and India - a critique of Benedict Anderson’s theory of imagined communities...

THE S. RAJARATNAM SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

Imagined communities and India A critique of Benedict Anderson’s theory of Imagined Communities w.r.t Indian Nationalism

Term Paper for IR 6014 - The Study of Nationalism and Multiculturalism

Prerna Tarika Diwaker

09-May-14

This paper aims at answering the question “No nation now but the Imagination”. The author agrees wi th Anderson’s ideology about imagined communities but questions its validity. The author’s paper focuses on identifying areas where ‘imagining’ is clearly possible in pre-modern times; where Anderson’s prediction of the end of nationalism being not remote is erroneous; and, how the non-allocation for intangible religious ideology in his theory results in its inapplicability to the Muslim society in India.

Imagined communities and India

A critique of Benedict Anderson’s theory of Imagined Communities w.r.t Indian Nationalism


of 16

Introduction Narratives; frame our identities. They illustrate our origins and direct our future actions. Few identities have

been as powerful a motor for social change or have emerged as loudly on the wor ld stage as national identities,

keeping in mind the numerous movements they have fostered over the years. In this context India presents a

unique case. India is a multi-nation state due to the immense diversity of linguistic, cultural and ethnic groups

within it; each having its own particular historical narrative and myths of origin. People often argue that India

survives as a nation habitually by being a nation; but logically, it indeed does make sense. Although there does

exist various discrepancies and vast differences between the different parts of India, being a nation is what has

kept India as one nation, then therein lies the commonality. As a part-Tamilian-part-Sindhi with extended

family hailing from Kerala, Andra Pradesh and Gujarat, the author has grown up in Tamil Nadu with a multi-

cultural background, knowledge of various languages; love for various cuisines and in an environment with

friends from different parts of India. However, the connection she feels in a foreign land to a complete stranger

from another part of the same country or the emotion she feels cheering for her national team for a sport that she

does not play on a regular basis or the respect that she feels when she sees her national flag flying high is what

she understands as the essence of Indian Nationalism. The author hereby aims at illustrating how she is the

perfect example of an imagined community.

Such heterogeneity is often overlooked by policy makers, who struggle to give the author and others alike a

homogenous identity and this, is the basis for the establishment of the idea of being an ‘Indian national’. The

imagination of various sub-nationalities is thus given less importance over the massive umbrella of being Indian

which encompasses all these various sub-nationalities. The author believes; apart from many others; that this is

why India survives as being one despite the fact that is way too heterogeneous and that nation is an imagined

community.




of 16

This paper aims at answering the question “No nation now but the Imagination”. The author agrees with

Anderson’s ideology about imagined communities but questions its validity. The author’s paper focuses on

identifying areas where ‘imagining’ is clearly possible in pre-modern times; where Anderson’s prediction of the

end of nationalism being not remote is erroneous; and, how the non-allocation for intangible religious ideology

in his theory results in its inapplicability to the Muslim society in India. This paper is divided into three sections

to illustrate the author’s argument. The first section aims at defining as to how a nation can be deemed a state by

systematically explaining the various components of the ideology. The second section deconstructs Benedict

Anderson’s ideology of the ‘Imagined Community’ by aiming at performing a thorough literature review of his

book. It concludes on an introductory note into the next section – in stating that the case of Muslim India is

quite different from Anderson’s secular imaginative society. The third section aims at illustrating how 20th

century India; with the presence of two opposite communities, communal tensions, religious fundamentalism,

Islamic resurgence, poverty and with its political figures who were modern in thought with deviations from the

pure European political thought and differed in their approaches to nation building; is a unique case study for

the imagination of society for the process of nation-building in its own way.

Nation, state and the nation-state This section aims at defining as to how a nation can be deemed a state by systematically explaining the various

components of the ideology. It first aims at establishing the foundational understanding of the terms of nation,

state and nation-state. It then proceeds to address as to how state-hood is not always in the interest of all nation-

groups. In doing this, the section aims at establishing the understanding that can be sharp differences about the

legitimacy of states and nations, both within and outside of their territory. Following that, it aims at addressing

the common error assuming that the evolution of nation-states is fixed and permanently-established across most




of 16

of the globe. Finally, the section delves into the two main theories that define a country—the Montevideo

Convention treaty and the constitutive theory of statehood.

To understand a nation as an imagine community, it is important to first understand the terms of nation, state

and nation-state associated with the ideology. Despite being used often and interchangeably, there is a

difference between the terms nation, state, and country. ‘Country’ and ‘State’ both apply to self-governing

political entities while a nation is a group of people who share the same culture, language, inst itutions, religion,

and history but do not have sovereignty1. A nation becomes a state when boundaries are set up to establish

territory and protect one’s sovereignty. The term nation-state reflects the situation when a nation of people has

an independent State of their own. An empire is a state that governs more than one national group, usually as a

result of conquest and frequently dominates, giving members of that group a special place in the regime2. Egypt,

China, Ghana, Rome and the modern British Empire are such examples.

The nation‐state concept emerged historically at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 which established concrete

boundaries among the states of Western Europe3. Other European countries followed suit by further exporting

it to their colonies all over the world4. Most nation states in existence today are young in terms of their formal

organization along these lines5. They are a mixed result of self‐determination efforts of native origin pushing

1 Olson, Liz. "State, Country, and Nation." Pearson Education, Inc. Last modified 2007. Retrieved from -

http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/state-country-nation.html 2 Ibid.

3 Madhusoodanan, Sriram. “The development of nationalism in the Indian case.” Scholar Commons. University of South Florida (USF)

Tampa Library. 2009. Retrieved from - http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=honors_gast. 4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/state-country-nation.html

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=honors_gast




of 16

for independence, and a gradual movement in colonial policies towards decolonization following the World

War II6.

Attaining state-hood is not always in the interest of all nation-groups. While there are ethnic or cultural groups

who consider themselves a nation and have a state of their own; like the French, Dutch, Egyptians and Japanese;

there are others who want state-hood but cannot achieve the same - East Timorese, Tibetans, Chechnyans and

Palestinians are such examples7. There are certain others don't want statehood but at the same time claim and

enjoy some autonomy too - the Sioux within the boundaries of the United States, the Catalan within Spain, and

the Scots within Britain are such examples8. Each of these nations has its own special territory, rights, laws and

culture, but not all of them necessarily desire or enjoy statehood. There are also some imagined nations which

are larger than states or cross state boundaries. The Arab nation embracing more than a dozen states and the

nation of the Kurds of four states are such examples9. There are also states that are not nations—such as

Switzerland, whose citizens speak four different languages and have varied cultures. We thus notice that there

can be sharp differences about the legitimacy of states and nations, both within and outside of their territory.

State boundaries are arbitrary and often change - by war, negotiation, arbitration and even by sale of territory

for money10. It is hence erroneous to assume that nation-states are fixed and permanently-established across

most of the globe. While some states have sustained their existence, others may be here today but gone

tomorrow. History is witness to how in just the past ten years, a number of powerful states have disappeared,

like Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, East Germany, North and South Yemen, and of course the mighty Union of

6 Ibid.

7 Paul, James A. "Part 1: Nations and States - What's the difference?" Global Policy Forum. Last modified January 19, 2001. Retr ieved

from - http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/172/30345.html 8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/172/30345.html




of 16

Soviet Socialist Republics11. In this aspect, governments use two opposing theories to define a country—the

Montevideo Convention treaty and the constitutive theory of statehood12. In 1933, at the Montevideo

Convention in Uruguay, a treaty was signed on the Rights and Duties of States13. The treaty defines a State

using four criteria—a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and a capacity to enter into

relations with other States14. The convention also declares that a State does need recognition by other States to

be legal. Conversely, the constitutive theory of statehood said that a country existed if it was recognized as

sovereign by other countries; even if the country did not have control of its territory or a permanent

population15. This diplomatic recognition confers legitimacy on a new state (or on the government of a state),

but there are times when a divided consensus within the international community arises16. This can be seen with

the Western Sahara, East Timor or Palestine; all three being under the jurisdiction of other states, although they

are eligible to independent statehood according to the majority of the international community. Northern Ireland

Tibet and Taiwan are such examples.

Thus, a nation can be deemed an independent state if it has an internationally recognized land and border even if

border disputes exists; has nationals and permanent residents; had autonomous sovereignty; has an organized

economic activity that regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money; has a transportation network for

11

Paul, James A. "Part 1: Nations and States - What's the difference?" Global Policy Forum. Last modified January 19, 2001. Retrieved from - http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/172/30345.html 12

Olson, Liz. "State, Country, and Nation." Pearson Education, Inc. Last modified 2007. Retrieved from -

http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/state-country-nation.html 13

Ibid. 14

Ibid. 15

Ibid. 16

Paul, James A. "Part 1: Nations and States - What's the difference?" Global Policy Forum. Last modified January 19, 2001. Retrieved from - http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/172/30345.html







of 16

moving goods and people; has an education system; and finally; has recognition from other independent

states17.

Anderson’s ideology of the Nation as an Imagined Community This section deconstructs Benedict Anderson’s ideology of the ‘Imagined Community’ by aiming at performing

a thorough literature review of his book. It resonates with the understanding that the concepts of nation and

nation-state are more about perception and feelings of identity rather than concrete facts. The section also

identifies as to how the nature of imagination is dynamic and highly subjective; often even resulting in

disagreement with about what counts as a nation. This section also addresses the author’s attempt at

contemplating as to why the nation would not be imagined and critiques Anderson’s theory. Finally, the section

concludes on an introductory note into the next section – in stating that the case of Muslim India is quite

different from Anderson’s secular imaginative society which did not allocated any space for intangible religious

ideology.

In his book Imagined Communities, Anderson’s classic definition of the nation as an imagined community is

analytically convincing and empirically observable when he states that “the members of even the smallest

nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of

each, lives the image of their communion18. It is also minimalist. In fact, the term “imagined” can be stretched

to denote the simple fact that the nation is a constructed idea; not necessarily rooted in empirically observable

qualities. According to Anderson the definition of the nation is as follows:

17

Olson, Liz. "State, Country, and Nation." Pearson Education, Inc. Last modified 2007. Retrieved from - http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/state-country-nation.html 18

Anderson, Benedict Richard O'Gorman. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the O rigin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 1991.





of 16

“It is an imagined political community and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign. It is

imagined because the member of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow

members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their

communion19.”

He further adds that a nation, despite its volume, is limited due to its defined boundaries. Moreover, the concept

has evolved from acceptance of religious pluralism during age of enlightenment. Nations always exist in a

community, as people are willing to die for such fraternity20. Before the dawn of nationalism, religion always

provided answers to people’s suffering. The language, religious communities, and dynastic realm were the

constituents of pre-modern societies. This could be seen in the case of the empires of the Byzantine, Islamic,

and even middle kingdom. Monarchy and rule through monarchical marriage was the other reason that held

society together.

Anderson explains that gradually, the realm of earlier thoughts started to change with the apprehension of

world. The economic changes led to a shift in perception of people about their communities and the printing

press set the foundation stone of modern society and concept21. This evolution brought business propositions to

all concerned and thus initiated the proliferation of ideas to larger communities. The advent of administrative

languages like English also helped in creating a conscious of nationalism. This led to the further decline of

imagined religious communities. He further argues that old languages played a pivotal role in the nourishing of

modern nationalist concepts and that different people utilized the concept of language as the basis of their

national identity. According to him languages are sources of intra, inter communication among the

19

Ibid. p. 6. 20

Ibid. p. 22. 21

Ibid.




of 16

communities, and thus play an important role in territorial boundaries. Without the same language, the concept

of sovereign states would be difficult to apprehend 22. Language barrier can alienate masses from the main

concept of territorial independence. Anderson concludes by mentioning that three factors – namely, the nature

of human beings, their territorial geography, and the past - contributed to the provocation of anti-colonial

uprisings23.

Scholars argue that the concepts of nation and nation-state are more about perception and feelings of identity

rather than concrete facts, since most governments work to carefully build a sense of national identity among its

citizens24. This is very important since most nation-states have citizens of more than one nationality and this

could lead to a situation of conflict-of- identity. The small groups of Catalonians in Spain, Bretons in France,

and Ainu in Japan are such examples25. States are formed when imagined communities are governed by

institutions- a government, a legislature, a parliament and defended by a military force. It is difficult to

differentiate an ethnic group from a nation is because the moment that an ethnic group starts to view itself as a

nation, it becomes a nation26. This nationhood sometimes transcends geographical boundaries. This can be seen

in the case where when the Kurdish people became a nation, they started thinking of themselves as an ethnic

group with a common language, history, and culture that set them apart from the neighboring Turks, Arabs, and

Persians27.

Although the author agrees with the fact that academia helps in concluding that nations are indeed imagined

communities, she would like to draw attention to the fact that it is not necessary that the imagination be the 22

Ibid. 23

Ibid. 24

Olson, Liz. "State, Country, and Nation." Pearson Education, Inc. Last modified 2007. Retrieved from - http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/state-country-nation.html 25

Ibid. 26

Ibid. 27

Ibid.





of 16

same for everyone. The nature of the imagination being highly subjective, people may identify themselves as

members of myriad nations at one point, but even those identifications may change over time28. The strength of

this identification also varies and sometimes, people may also disagree about what counts as a nation. The

change of membership in a nation can be seen in the history of the United States. While in the early decades of

the Republic many Americans valued their connection to their home states over an attachment to the federal

government; after World War II, Americans closely identified with the United States as a single nation of one

people29. This reluctance to identify with other Americans initially is what sparked the Civil War.

According to her understanding, the author contemplates as to why would the nation not be imagined? As far

back as Joseph Stalin, observers have pointed out that “a common language is one of the characteristics that

features a nation30.” Van den Berghe presents a socio-biological perspective when he proposes that “ethnic and

race sentiments are to be understood and attenuated as a form of kin selection31.” Yet the empirical validity of

such primordial attachments is largely discounted by present day scholars. Breuilly claims that “ethnic myths or

memories do not matter. People have plenty of other ways to provide for a collective identity32.” Eller and

Coughlan also help demonstrate that primordialists provide only unsatisfactory explanatory models33.

The author further opines that while Anderson’s factor of the community being imagined is necessary; it is

however an insufficient condition for it to represent a nation. Although Anderson is emphatic in pointing out

28

Olson, Liz. "State, Country, and Nation." Pearson Education, Inc. Last modified 2007. Retrieved from -

http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/state-country-nation.html 29

Ibid. 30

Stalin, Joseph. “The Nation”. John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith. Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1994. 18-21. 31

Berghe, Pierre Van Den. “A Socio-Biological Perspective.” John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith. Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1994. 96-103 32

Breuilly, John. “Dating the Nation: How Old Is an Nation?” Atsuko Ichijo and Gordana Uzelac. When Is the Nation? Towards an Understanding of Theories of Nationalism. London: Routledge, 2005. 15-39. 33

Eller, Jack D. and Reed M. Coughlan. “The Poverty of Primordialism: The Demystification of Ethnic Attachments.” Ethnic and Racial Studies (1993): 181-202.





of 16

that “communities are to be distinguished by… the style in which they are imagined”; he does not actually

explain as to how the nation is different in style from other communities 34. He posits the nation against the

dynastic realm as well as the religious community; but this is viewed as a historical argument, displaying the

origins of nations, rather than it being an analytical one. One can imagine a variety of forms of governance unit

other than the nation-state that satisfy Anderson’s conditions of being a community imagined as both limited

and sovereign; the medieval European city being one example. European cities of the middle ages can be used

to befit Anderson’s four criteria for constituting a nation. They were ‘imagined’ since all the communities larger

than primordial villages of face-to- face contact are imagined; ‘limited’ because the medieval town by definition

imagined itself as coterminous with mankind and thereby less than a nation; ‘sovereign’ because certain states

like the Swiss city states of Geneva or Basle were free; and finally, a ‘community’ because the existence o f

deep, horizontal comradeship among the people leading to “millions of people.. willingly.. die for such limited

imaginings35” war such as the Second Kappeler War of 1531 where hundreds of citizens lost their lives to

protect their cities36. Thus, we see that ‘imagining’ in Anderson’s terms is clearly possible in pre-modern times.

Moreover, his prediction that the end of nationalism is not remote was seriously dented by the fall of Marxist

Russia and introduction of the globalization.

It is no arguing that Benedict Anderson tried to come up with a scientific definition of nationalism and while he

was quite successful in drafting an acceptable definition; his main concept relied on intangibles, which

constitute a community and nation in larger scale. However, his thoughts are more of a secular mindset and he

did not allocated any space for intangible religious ideology. He completely disregarded the Islamic concept of

34

Anderson, Benedict Richard O'Gorman. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the O rigin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 1991. 35

Ibid. 36

Bill ig, Michael. Banal Nationalism. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 1995




of 16

Ummah or the united nation of believers, which lays the foundation stones of many liberation movements in

Islamic world37. Specifically, the case of Muslim India is quite different from Anderson’s secular imaginative

society. In the next section I will shed light on nationalism in the Indian subcontinent and how Anderson’s

ideology does not apply to the Muslim society in India.

Nationalism and the peculiar case of 20th century India This section aims at illustrating how 20th century India; with the presence of two opposite communities,

communal tensions, religious fundamentalism, Islamic resurgence, poverty and its ideologically different

political figures; is a unique case study for the imagination of society for the process of nation-building in its

own way. This section also aims at establishing the understanding that in a country as large and as socially

layered as India; despite being successful; Nationalism doesn't always work right through. This can be seen as

how with respect to a Muslim-oriented India, the modern concept of Nation-state and Imagined communities of

Benedict Anderson has no space to accommodate religion as a pillar of nation-building process.

Nationalism; one of the byproducts of Industrial Revolution; is the product of a collective imagination

constructed through rememoration, through a shared history. This imagination must be trained to take pleasure

in such strenuous change in the modern world. It is important to note that social priorities that constitute

nationalism today in people are not so that higher education in the social sciences has prospered enough to

understand them. Certainly not in India as it is rising to take its place as a competitor in a developed world

despite its dismal purchasing power parity (PPP), its perpetual fight against poverty, its lack of internal security

and fractured domestic politics. Many ‘nations’ and communities had existed within the territory of what we

call today “India” even before the birth of the Indian state in 1947. Despite being one state, the cultures situated

37

Riaz, A. (2003). Nations, nation state and politics of Muslim Identity in India. Comparative Study of South Asia, Africa and Middle East, 22, 53-58.




of 16

within India are very diverse and have been so since time immemorial. North South East and West India are all

starkly different having different cultures, people, languages etc. However, what binds them together since 1947

was first the freedom struggle for independence which then progressed to the devotion for the game of cricket

and now which has progressed to the common frenzy to see how the politics of democracy plays out in the

country.

The growth of nationalism in India can be traced back through four different stages - ancient India, the medieval

period, the pre- independence period and the post- independence period. The origin of nationalism can be traced

back to ancient India where loyalty towards the motherland was born38. The Rigveda; found in this stage; refer

to India as Bharata Varsha or Bharata Khanda. This growth was further strengthened in the age of Mauryas and

Guptas. The Mauryans followed an imperial policy and brought a major part of north India under their control

through the teachings of the Arthashastra, thus significantly contributing to nationalism39. However, the idea of

nationalism did not receive concrete shape during ancient India, since nationalism was almost equated with

Regionalism40. This was due to the presence of a large number of small provinces and that loyalty towards a

province itself was considered as nationalism. During Medieval India the idea of nationalism gained

momentum41. There was a significant increase in the Muslim population due to the domination by the Muslim

Rule and during this period, respect and loyalty towards the king was considered nationalism. The growth of

nationalism was most strengthened during the pre-independence period – during the British Raj. Important

phases of the freedom struggle such as the Sepoy mutiny, the civil disobedient movement, the formation of the

Indian National Congress, the Dandi Satyagraha, the Jallian Wallah Bagh massacre, the Quit India Movement

38

Mondal, Puja. "Nationalism in India." Your Article Library. Accessed May 8, 2014. Retrieved from - http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/essay/essay-on-nationalism-in-india-1716-words/4640/ 39

Ibid. 40

Ibid. 41

Ibid.

http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/essay/essay-on-nationalism-in-india-1716-words/4640/




of 16

etc all helped shape nationalism that brought about the freedom struggle of 1947. In the post- independence

period Nationalism assumed concrete shape and the Indian state was established with the drafting of the

constitution, the preamble and with the adoption of the national anthem, other patriotic songs, national symbols,

national festivals, and national languages etc all which oozed a sense of being Indian42.

While Anderson stressed the imagination of society for nation-building process; the case of 20th century India

had its own peculiarities. The presence of two opposite communities, communal tensions, religious

fundamentalism, Islamic resurgence, and poverty shaped the vision of Jinnah, Iqbal, Gandhi, and Nehru. We

have to understand that in a country as large and as socially layered as India, nationalism doesn't work right

through. India is said to be a land of different communities, different ethnicities each speaking their own

language and having their own history and associated culture. This is different in Bangladesh; for example;

because it is much smaller and it is different in the United States because of the relentlessness of the

exceptionalism43.

If we analyze the Muslim resurgence attempts by thinkers like Shah Wali ullah, Syed Ahmed Bralevi, Sayyid

Ahmed Khan, Altaf Hussain Hali and Allama Iqbal during the post-independence period of Indian history as per

Anderson’s philosophy of imagined community; we notice that Indian Muslims had thought about an imaginative

community on religious grounds44

. While this may sound primordial to European nationalists; as per Anderson’s

three pillars of what makes a nation – census, map and museum- the Indian Muslims confirmed to his postulates.

The complete Muslim community was the base of subject thoughts and ideology and quite unlike the South

42

Mondal, Puja. "Nationalism in India." Your Article Library. Accessed May 8, 2014. Retrieved from - http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/essay/essay-on-nationalism-in-india-1716-words/4640/ 43

Riaz, A. (2003). Nations, nation state and politics of Muslim Identity in India. Comparative Study of South Asia, Africa and Middle

East, 22, 53-58. 44

Ibid.

http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/essay/essay-on-nationalism-in-india-1716-words/4640/




of 16

American liberation; the threat of extinction was not socio-economic but dominated by religious identity45

. Since the

rise of Islam in Arab, any Islamic society cannot exist without the support of religion as mentioned by Armstrong46

.

In fact, the rise and decline of the Islamic power stems from its dependence on the religion. In India, the political

leadership of Muslims was initially in favor of separate communal rights and later, in a separate state47

.

While Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a firm believer of a modern religious plura l society; his bitter experiences of

Hindu prejudice had force him to change his mind. Still, he never vowed for theocratic dominion and began a quest

for a liberal, democratic country where Muslims can experiment about blending modernity with Islam48

. His

concepts were not secular but liberal Islam. Muhammad Iqbal, on the other hand, was a great vocalist of Islamic

resurgence. His vision was more pan-Islamic then western and his synthesis was on rationalization of religion and

self- reformation. From a modern nationalist point of view, he may sound primordial, but for a student of Islamic

history, he is a modern reformer49

. In addition to them, Mahatma Gandhi was a nationalist and strong believer of

religiously plural independent India50

. Nevertheless, his agrarian economic model for independent India was

outdated51

. His political philosophy was enigmatic and somewhat more spiritual and, Non-violence and civil

disobedience were hallmarks of his core concepts52

. He accepted the modern nationalist thought but added a Hindu

mythical touch of dharma and Satyagarh to it. In contrast to him, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was secular and socialist

in ideology. While he believed in a politically and Industrial sovereign India were different from Gandhi’s; his

45


East, 22, 53-58. 46

Armstrong, K. (2002). A short history of Islam. New York: Modern Library. 47


East, 22, 53-58. 48

Bolitho, H. (1954). Jinnah : Creator of Pakistan. London: John Murray (Publisher) Ltd. 49

Armstrong, K. (2002). A short history of Islam. New York: Modern Library. 50

Gandhi, M. K. (1969). The Story of my Experiment With Truth. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House. 51

Ibid. 52

Ibid.




of 16

thoughts on Indian Nationalism were similar53

. We can thus understand after considerable literature review that the

modern concept of Nation-state and Imagined communities of Benedict Anderson has no space to accommodate

religion as a pillar of nation-building process. The case of India is different from Europe as well as South and North

America.

Conclusion While Nationalism is a by-product of capitalism and industrial revolution, the case of India is different from all other

examples of nationalism. No other country like India had such distinctive communities based on religion and also,

the role of the radical element in India was also more formidable than other communities. In addition to this the

historically tall political figures of 20th century India were all modern in thought with deviations from the pure

European political thought. This has been illustrated above in the previous section. Moreover, every one of the

political stalwarts perceived a post-colonial India in their own perspectives; similar yet starkly different from each

other. While all of them did satisfy the basic definition of Anderson’s “Imagined Communities” they differed in their

styles and approaches to nation building. Hence, we should note that while most theorists have tried to theorize the

emerging concept of Nationalism a one of the by-products of Industrial Revolution in light of the imagination of

society for the process of nation-building; 20th century India is thus a unique case study in its own way. In

conclusion, the author would like to say that although she does agree with Anderson’s ideology about imagined

communities; she questions its validity in areas concerning how ‘imagining’ is clearly possible in pre-modern

times, its end not being remote and its non-allocation for intangible religious ideology resulting in the

ideological inapplicability to the Muslim society in India.

53

Stepaniants, M. (1989). Nehru, the man and his vision. In Nehru-Philosopher and Humanist (pp. 1-8). Delhi: Unesco House.

Imagined communities and India - a critique of Benedict Anderson’s theory of imagined communities...

Documents

Transcript of Imagined communities and India - a critique of Benedict Anderson’s theory of imagined communities...