Module Detail

Political Science
Subject Name

7: Political Theory and Thought: Western and Indian

Paper Name
Traditions

Idea of Nation: Iqbal, Tagore and Savarkar

Module Name/Title

Module Id

Pre-requisites

 The idea of nation as propounded by

Objectives
Iqbal, Rabindranath Tagore and V.D.
Savarkar.
 Transformations in Iqbal’s of the idea of
nation from being a supporter of Indian
Nationalism to a vanguard of parochial
Muslim nationalism and advocate of
separate Muslim statehood.
 Development of Tagore’s views on nation
and nationalism with an account of his
critic of western concept of nation and
nationalism
 Savarkar’s conceptualization of Hindu
and Hinduvta

Idea of Nation, Hinduvta, Two Nation,

Keywords
Role Name Affiliation

Professor Ashutosh Kumar

Principal Investigator Panjab University,
Chandigarh

Dr. Krishna Menon Lady Shri Ram

Paper Coordinator
Content Writer/Author
(CW)
College, University of
Delhi.
Satrajit Banerjee, Department of
Assistant Professor, Political Science,
Bankura University

Prof. Pampa Mukherjee

Content Reviewer (CR) Panjab university,
Chandigarh

Prof. Pampa Mukherjee

Language Editor (LE) Panjab university,
Chandigarh

16.1 Objectives

This module will highlight

 The idea of nation as propounded by Iqbal, Rabindranath Tagore and V.D. Savarkar.
 Transformations in Iqbal’s of the idea of nation from being a supporter of Indian Nationalism to
a vanguard of parochial Muslim nationalism and advocate of separate Muslim statehood.
 Development of tagore’s views on nation and nationalism with an account of his critic of western
concept of nation and nationalism
 Savarkar’s conceptualization of Hindu and Hinduvta

16.2 Introduction
The idea of nation propounded by Iqbal, Tagore and Savarkar is considered as significant contributions to
the understanding of Indian political thought. They presented three different premises regarding the idea
of nation. Their understanding of nations varied as their experiences, arguments and goals were different.
Iqbal, a learned Muslim poet, in his early phase of life rendered a romantic expression of nation and
nationalism. As a passionate poet he fancied about Indian nationalistic spirit. Subsequently he turned out
to be a staunch supporter of pan-Islamism and separate Muslim statehood as soon as he realized the plight
of the Muslims in India and other parts of the world. Tagore, a versatile literary genius, looked for the
nature and source of unifying factor, apart from the objective elements, behind the national solidarity. He
formulated a unique version of the idea of nation which, he regarded, would be suitable for India as well
as other human communities in the world. Savarkar provided the idea of nation by redefining the Hindu
identity. He considered that the Hinduvta or Hinduness would be the fundamental principle of nation-
building in India. This module seeks to analyse three distinct ideas of nation propagated by Iqbal, Tagore
and Savarkar.

16.3 Idea of nation: Iqbal

Mohammed Iqbal, a passionate poet, cherished a deep attachment with the sights and sounds, flora and
fauna, valleys and rivers, pilgrimages and temples of India. His early poetic renderings reflected
unflinching support for the Indian nation and nationalism. However, his journey to Europe incited in him
strong affinity and deep love for the Islam. Subsequently he turned into a staunch supporter of pan-
Islamism. Finally, he voiced up for the separate statehood for the Muslims residing in India. Iqbal’s
formulation of nation was evolved through three different phases which were nationalist phase, pan-
Islamism and critic of Western nationalism and demand of separate Muslim nationhood.

16.3.1 NationalistPhase
Iqbal earned fame in the early year as a true nationalist patriot – poet, who showed a strong commitment
to the Indian nationalism through a number of renderings. He unraveled his deep anguish in the poem
Tasweer-I-Dard (The Picture of Sorrow) regarding the persistent discord and growing enmity among
different religious communities in India. In the same poem Iqbal upheld the principle of human love as
the highest value and ultimate binding forces which could bring together all human being overcoming all
prejudices. He felt that it would lead them to the realisation of true freedom. Further in the Sada-E-Dard
(the cry of pain) he lamented over the disunity and irreconcilable gape among the different communities
in India.

Although he eulogised the spirit of Indian nationalism to a great extent, yet he considered religion as a
significant determinant of nation-building process. Even Iqbal was so mesmerised with the spirit of Indian
nationalism that, being a poet, enamoured in different epithets, he expressed his affection and attachment
to the Indian people of their glorious cultural heritage, its rivers, countryside and mountains. In the poem
Naya Shiwala (The New Temple) he envisioned for constructing a temple in India, wherein an idol of
Mother India would be installed and worshiped. Another example of his deep reverence to India was that
he imagined of divinity ingrained even in the every particle of dust of the country. In a poem, imbued
with nationalistic spirit, entitled, Bachon Ka Qaumi Geet (The National Song of Indian Children) he
mentioned that the great religious preachers of the past like Guru Nanak, Christi, Buddha and Krishna
hailed India’s glorious heritage and preached the massage of harmony and brotherhood among all. Iqbal’s
passionate adoration for the motherland was revealed in the famous verse ‘Sare Jahan Se Achha Hindudta
Hamara... Mazhab Nahin Sikhita Apas Me Bair Rakhna Hindi Hain Hum Watan Ha Hindustan Humara’
(my India is the best country in the world... religion does not teach antagonism among each other; we all
are Indian and India is our country). He was so immensely moved by the idea of nationalism that his
feeling of belongingness to India reverberated in number of his poems. But his entanglement with Indian
nationalism happened to turn into empathy and antagonism as soon as he travelled to Europe. During this
period Iqbal appeared to espouse firstly, vision of a self-governing and united India free of foreign
domination as well as inner discord, particularly between the Hindus and the Muslims. Secondly,
resurgence of the Muslim and redressing the causes of gradual degeneration and declined of them in
India.

16.3.2 Critic of western nationalism and pan-Islamism

Iqbal’s abhorrence to the western concept of nationalism had been reflected in his comment as he
observed, “I have been repudiating the concept of nationalism since the time when it was not known in
India and Muslim worlds. At the very start it had become clear to me from the writings of the European
authors that the imperialistic designs of Europe were in great need of this effective weapon –the
propagation of the European conception of nationalism in Muslim countries – to shatter the religious
unity of Islam into pieces.”(Sherwani: 301). From his understanding of western intellectual traditions and
assessment of Europe expansionism Iqbal reached to the conclusion that under the spell of western
nationalism the Egyptians, the Iranians, the Turks and the Arabs, keeping aside their religious bond,
gradually became inclined to their racial origin and there by promptly became prey to western aggression
and exploitation. Indeed he was confirmed that the clandestine effort of the Europe to inject racialism
subtly in the Muslim country was responsible for the disintegration of the Muslim world. Moreover a
series of events like Italian raid on Tripoli (1911), the Balkan war (1912-1914), the revolt of Sharif
Hussein of Makkah (1916), the Skies-Picot Pact (1916) and the downfall of Ottoman Empire by the
Allied Power and subsequent initiative to tearing apart the whole territory into several fragments as prizes
for the conqueror delivered a strong impression upon Iqbal that it had debilitated Muslim unity. He
visualized that the West promoted and proliferated the supremacy of materialism. Hence it subdued the
values of religion and spirituality. Iqbal believed that the capitalist society, a produce of the western
civilization protected interests of the few instead of ensuring wellbeing of all. Even the capitalist
civilization of the West brought Science, Philosophy, Democracy, Constitution, and Fundamental Right
under its domination and crushed humanity. Moreover Democracy, Nationalism, Secularism and
socialism were inalienable component of western civilization.

As a matter of fact Iqbal appeared to pondering over the idea of pan-Islamism as he realised the
horrendous nature of western concept of nationalism which resulted in the existential crisis and discord in
the Islamic countries throughout the world. Iqbal’s scathing repudiation of western nationalism and effort
to develop a panacea for the consolidation and integration of Islam was enumerated extensively in his
reply to Maulana Ahmed Hussain’s views on nationalism. He strongly rejected Maulana’s views that
nations were formed by lands. Iqbal argued that the idea of nation and country were almost considered as
complementary terms since demarcation of a definite geographical boundary deemed to be an important
component of nation. It actually referred to a particular portion of land which came to be known as
countries like India, Arab etc. Therefore, the idea of country as long as it referred to a particular
geographical area would not be inconsistent with Islam. It was quite natural for the people to develop
instinctively a strong sense of belongingness and emotional attachment to their place of domicile to that
extent that they dared to bear hardship and even they could readily sacrifice for it. But the idea of nation
was more than a simple geographical delimitation of land, rather a political concept. It was based on the
principle of cohesiveness among individuals. However he conceived that a nation based on law of human
association did not necessarily contradict Islamic values. Iqbal delineated that the endeavour of human
society to look forward to establish a united social order and the initiative to restore peace and security of
the nation was consistent with the Islamic values.

It appeared to Iqbal from the contemplation of Qua’ran that Islam promoted love and harmony among
mankind instead of spurring fundamentalist and racial orientation. Historically speaking, in countries like
Egypt, Greece and Persia religion assumed national character. But subsequently in those countries the
racial identity got priority over the religious creed with the interference of the Jews. Europe under the
influence of Christianity held state responsible solely for the conduct of social life of and detached
religion from human affairs by confining it to the private and individual level. But Islam did not consider
religion as an individual or private affair solely; neither had it implied a racial connotation. Islam
promoted harmony and unity among mankind as a precondition of emerging as a cohesive community.

Iqbal further asserted that Europe became disintegrated as soon as the religious unity disappeared. The
continent experienced a prolonged chaos and series of protests since the Christianity failed to emerge as a
binding force. Even the idea of nationalism failed to rescue them from the imminent consequences.
Subsequently irreligiousness, religious scepticism and economic conflict rived Europe. Iqbal did not want
that the Asia should meet with the similar fate. Therefore, religion and nationality as a political concept
could not in any way mutually reciprocate; rather they appeared to be antithetical to each other. Iqbal
assumed that a community should follow Millat (a common way of life, law and order). In his
understanding Millat referred to the idea of ‘Quam’ or nation. Iqbal viewed the spread of nationalism in
India was part of imperialist venture which perpetuated exploitation of Indian people. In India, given the
persisting social disunity, united nationhood would be an unattainable ideal. The idea of nationalism
pioneered by the West would shatter the religious unity of Islam. Hence nationalistic pursuit of India
influenced by the West and preoccupation to preserve cultural diversities would disturb the balance
between cultural identity and political solidarity in India. Even the idea of nationalism demanded Indian
Muslim to shun their faith and identity for the sake of greater Indian nationhood or Indianism. Iqbal
asserted that it would disintegrate the Islam if the Indian Muslim conceded to the spirit of Indian
nationalism. On the contrary he advocated for maintaining communal brotherhood and cultural autonomy
as well as political autonomy of the Muslim, which he described by the term ‘ummah’. This vision of
Iqbal was culminated subsequently into a claim of creating a separate Muslim state.

16.3.3 Separate Muslim Nationhood : A Synthesis of nationalism and Pan-Islamism

Iqbal’s concern for the Islamic community took another turn from his earlier preaching of Pan-Islamic
views, as he came across, with the disintegration of Islamic world at the attack of western civilization and
values, the emergence of independent and autonomous Muslim Republics in Turkey, Iran and Egypt. He
was enthralled by the growing development of spirit of nationalism and allegiance among the Muslim
population exclusively towards Islam. Iqbal, more and more, started realising need for formation of a
separate state for the Muslim population in India. He mentioned in a massage sent to the central Khilafat
committee on 1922 that, the duty of Muslims was to arrange distinct governments for themselves.
(Mujahid-37). Around 1928-29 Iqbal asserted that the Muslim nations must concentrate on their own
interests and remain focussed to this end till they became strong enough to emerge as family of republics.
He delineated that `a true and living unity was not so easy as to be achieved by merely symbolical
overlord ship. It was truly manifested in a multiplicity of free, independent units whose racial rivalries
were adjusted and harmonised by the unifying bound of a common spiritual aspiration. It seemed to him
that Islam was neither nationalism nor imperialism but a league of nations which recognised artificial
boundaries and racial distinction for reference only, and not for restricting the social horizon of its
members’ (Mujahid-37). He realised that it would not be wise to renounce the idea of an artificial
boundary for the Muslims. And he urged that the boundary would be drawn on the basis of Islamic
values, and not political nationalism. Moreover, Muslim countries would be linked with each other
through an open exchange and cooperation.

Indeed, Iqbal conceptualised of a distinct Muslim nationalism, a synthesis between nationalism and Pan-
Islamism, in compliance with the Islamic valued and principles. Iqbal urged that Muslims should
construct and pursue their own nationalism as he believed, “... wherever nationalism has been adopted in
the Muslim world, and in whatever form the nation concerned has been a Muslim group. No Muslim
people has evolved a national feeling that has meant a loyalty to or even concern for a community
transcending the bonds of Islam.”(Mujahid: 35). He visualised that in several non-Muslim countries
Muslim people’s allegiance to the predominant spirit of composite nationalism had been proved
counterproductive to the interests. It was evident to him that in India, the similar experiment of showing
loyalty to the plural society, other than to the Muslim community, would be detrimental to the autonomy
of Muslim population.

In 1909, Iqbal expounded, as he refused to attend a meeting held at Minerva lodge, separate arrangement
for Hindus and Muslim. He argued that it would be an ambitious project to look for a common
nationhood for both Hindus and Muslims in India as it might not resolve the problem of backwardness of
the Muslim population. In an address to the Muslim league session on 1928 he demanded for the need of
creating a state within the territorial boundary of India for the Muslims. In the presidential address at the
Muslim league session,1930 the fullest manifestation of his claim of creating a Muslim state came out as
he reiterated, “the units of Indian society are not territorial as in European countries. India is a continent
of human groups belonging to different races, speaking different languages and professing different
religious. Their behaviour is not all determined by a common race-consciousness. Even the Hindus do not
form a homogenous group... the Muslim demand for the creation of a Muslim India with in India is
therefore, perfectly justified.”( Sherwanhi: 10).

Iqbal was aware of the apprehension of the Muslim population for their claim of creating a Muslim
state within the predominantly Hindu state of India. However, he assumed that a consolidated state with
Muslim majority based on communal bounding and values of Islam would be propitious for the Muslim
population in India. He believed that the foundation of politics must be religion, otherwise it would be an
aversion of Din (Islamic faith) and it would turn into Machiavellian order of state. Although Iqbal
demanded a separate state for the Muslim within the geographical contours of India, yet he did not bear
any disposition to part with India. Iqbal came up with lot more arguments in his effort to establish a
consolidated state for the Muslim as he believed that in India one community sought to destroy another
community and “...the present state of things is such that the communities (Hindis and Muslims) do not
trust each other, they have no faith on each other.”(Sherwani: 60). Moreover, around 1927 he asserted,
“...the talk of united nationalism is futile and will perhaps remain so far a long time to come. The words
has existed in the lips of the people of this country for fifty years, and like a hen it has cackled a great deal
without laying a single egg.”(Sherwani. P.59). Indeed the law of Islam repudiated the `apparent natural
differences of race’ and `Historical differences of nationality’. In Islam nationality had been
conceptualized not as ethnic, lingual or geographical unity but as `Unity of the religious and political
idea’ or `Like mindedness’. (Sherwani: 141).

Iqbal proposed a blue print of Muslim state in the north-western part of India. In his scheme of
reorganising India territory he stated, “...the Punjab, the north-west frontier province, Sindh and
Baluchistan amalgamated into single state. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the
British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North- West Indian Muslim state appears to me to be the
final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India. ”(Sherwani: 11). Therefore, as Iqbal conceived,
creation of a Muslim state within the territory of India would be in the best interest of India and Islam. In
1927, as an elected member of Punjab legislative assembly Iqbal expounded the impracticability of the
notion of united nationalism as he rightly observed the growing animosity between Hindu and Muslim
and crave of the both community to assert and articulate their self-styled vision and version of nationality
along their respective religious faiths. Time and again he asserted his firm adherence to the demand of a
separate homeland for the Muslim to the Nehru Committee and Simon Commission. During Round Table
Conferences he further insisted on the exigency of creating a predominantly Muslim state. Iqbal retorted,
in response to Mr. Srinivasa Sastris’s threat perception regarding the claim of separate statehood of the
Muslim, that the “Muslim demand ... is actuated by a genuine desire for type of unitary government
contemplated by the nationalist Hindu politician with a view to secure permanent communal dominance
in the whole of India.”(Sherwani: 12). Iqbal steadfastly disaccorded with the congress and Muslim
league’s vision of rehabilitating and accommodating Muslim in the Indian polity. Iqbal enumerated in the
eight letters to Jinnah the pressing need of separate statehood for the Muslim. Even he urged Jinnah to
denounce the atheist socialism of J.L.Nehru as it might liquidate the claim of the Muslim by offering
redress to their economic distress without resolving the actual problem.

16.4 Idea of nation: R.N. Tagore

R.N.Tagore, Nobel laureate poet and patriot, expressed through his literary works philia for India. He
witnessed suffering of his compatriots subjugated under the British colonial domination, partition of
Bengal, indiscriminate exploitation of imperialism throughout the world. Tagore’s understanding of
nation/nationalism developed under the backdrop of series of socio-political-economic-cultural
development within and outside India. His profound nationalistic spirit still reverberates in the national
anthems of the three different countries, i.e, India, Bangladesh, Srilanka. However after 1917, his high
appreciation for the notion of nationalism turned into severe criticism. He unconditionally denounced the
modern notion of nation/nationalism champion by the west. The statist version of nation/nationalism and
its attribute of aggressiveness, claim of superiority and madness for subjugating and annihilating other
nation detested him. On the contrary he strongly emphasised on a version a nation/nationalism embedded
in society, not in state which would preserve the humanity, establish in her connection among individual
and precluded violence and destruction. Tagore envisaged in his idea of nation/nationalism a vision of
human unity.

Rabindranath Tagore in an article entitled `What Is Nation,’ illustrated and interrogated the idea of nation
from various perspectives. In this article he mentioned that there was no trace of the idea of nation in the
Indian heritage. Firstly, despite having commendable mastery over bangali vocabulary, Tagore was not
convinced with any particular term in Bengali for representing nation or nationalism as he did not find
any suitable alternative which might bear the exact essence of the terms. Therefore, he preferred to use
the English terms nation and nationalism in analyzing his views. Following Ernest Renan’s arguments,
Tagore reiterated that Egypt, China, Asiria and Persia in the primordial age were not accustomed with the
idea of nation/nationalism. Although the Roman Empire was about to emerge as nation, yet they fall prey
to the attack of the Barbarian Tribes and gradually disintegrated. But the fragments of the Roman Empire
emerge as nations like England, France, Germany, and Russia through a study and prolonged struggle for
century. Tagore sought to find out the factors which determined the nationhood of population in his above
mention article. While defining the idea of nation Tagore endeavoured to find out the unifying factors or
the principles of commonness in the existing nations of the world. At the initial level he interrogated the
viability of the existing factors such as Monarch/King language, religion, and race, agreed upon widely,
responsible for the formation of a nation. Thereafter, in pursuit of this he contended the role of those
binding principles for creation of a nation. Indeed Tagore looked out for the missing link between the
objective elements of nation-building and the sense of bonding; consciousness of nationality—the
subjective dimension of nationhood.

As the prevalent agreed upon version of nation observed that the king or Monarchs united a population
which subsequently emerged as a nation. Tagore, in conformity with this notion, argued that Ireland and
Scotland became integral part of English nation as a result of monarchical rule in Britain. The sense of
nationhood developed under the rule of a monarch once a conqueror occupied a land and with the
advancement of time the ruler earned unconditional loyalty of the people of that land. However Tagore
observed in contradiction to the earlier analysis that there were numerous examples of nations where there
were no trace of such dynastic rule, even nation had been develop without the manifest or latent presence
of Monarch. There were other examples of nations still surviving even after the downfall of the dynastic
rule.

Among the other major binding factors of a nation was language. Tagore observed that the language
might be considered as a source of solidarity within a nation. Yet it seemed dubious to him as he argued
that U.S.A and England in spite of being two different nations used English as a common parlance. On
the other hand Switzerland emerged as a united nation despite having more than three different lingual
groups. Further the agreed upon notion of nation entailed that uniformity in religious practices of a group
of people led them to emerge as a nation. On the contrary Tagore seemed that people with varying
religious beliefs such as Protestants, Catholics could certainly be part of different nations. Tagore further
argued that a person could become part of any nation either French or German or English irrespective of
his/her religious inclination. Another prerequisite of nation-building held by the agreed upon doctrine of
nation was the racial homogeneity. But Tagore contradicted as it was also true that in this world there was
not a single race which was pure. Finally wealth and territoriality might be considered at important
components of nation building. But this could not properly clarify the essence of nation. Therefore like
Renan, Tagore also believed that nation was not a mere compound of race, religion, language, dynastic
rule and geographical landscape rather it was an alive entity, a conscious being, an ideational form of an
extended family of mankind. Indeed nationhood was the feeling of attachment of an individual with a
particular group of people having common memories of past and experiences of the present. The main
binding principle was cherishing lineage of a glorious past and consensus co-existence. Indeed
nationhood was a condensed form of inherent consciousness of mutual mental and emotional attachment
with the aspiration to strive together, live together which evolved through out ages and persisted through
generations. Tagore felt that a group of people realized a strong sense of interconnectedness with each
other when they suffered together and face the adversities unitedly. Tagore found that reciprocity and
sharing of sorrow, pain, happiness brought individuals together and attached them to a string which hold
them together. Nation is such an entity having a soul. It is the willingness of a group of people to stay
together. The nation is a living reality, nationality is a psychological commodity.

In the article ‘What Is Nation’ Tagore stressed on autonomy and distinctiveness of nations. He also
admitted that contradictions among nations would lead to the advancement of civilization. However, in
the `Nationalism’ he criticized that the autonomy of the nation could prove to be pernicious. He argued
that the urge to establish distinctiveness of a nation ultimately resulted in flaunting its superiority over
other nations. And even it might provoke a nation to devour other nations. Tagore accused the western
nationalism for the catastrophic consequence of First World War and imperialist expansion throughout
the globe. Even he warned the Japanese people to abandon the organized self-seeking mechanism of the
western nationalism. Tagore did not oppose the claim of distinct identity of the nation. He looked down
upon the tendency of aggressive distinctiveness of the nation and the tendency to overpower other
nations.

Tagore mentioned that the nation was an embodiment of institutionalized power. In the ‘Creative Unity’,
Tagore delineated the persistent conflict of the modern day world was between the ‘living spirit of the
people’ and the process of nation-building. He reiterated, “The people are living beings. They have their
distinct personalities. But nations are organizations of power, and therefore their inner aspects and
outward expressions are everywhere monotonously the same.”(Tagore:143) Tagore asserted people were
self-expressive and creative beings, and therefore they had the ability to create which made ‘the world of
man fertile of life and variedly beautiful’. On contrary to this fact, he claimed that “the nations do not
create, they merely produce and destroy. Organizations for production are necessary. Even organizations
for destruction may be so. But when, actuated by greed and hatred, they crowd away into the living man
who creates, then the harmony is lost, and the people’s history runs at the break-neck speed towards some
fatal catastrophe.” (Tagore:144) Tagore came up with the idea of the ‘cult of the Nation’ which was
based on human professionalism. He maintained that the cult would lead people towards a great success.
But he warned strongly that it would bring great danger for the individuals by turning them away from the
higher purposes of life. It seemed to him, “The greater the amount of success, the stronger the conflicts of
interest and jealousy and hatred which are aroused in men’s mind, thereby making it more and more
necessary for other peoples, who are still living, to stiffen into nations. With the growth of nationalism,
man has become the greatest menace to man.” (Tagore:146)

Tagore thought that at the time of crisis the people became conscious about self-preservation and
sometimes for doing so people might reach at the level of hyper-consciousness. But similar attribute of a
nation might prove baneful for the other nations. Tagore further observed that a group of people remained
subservient to their narrow self-interests when they got training to do so. Similarly Nationalism directed
and motivated the people to attain its narrow purposes, and thereby they became morally degraded and
intellectually blind. However, Tagore admitted that self-seeking attributes were not always necessarily
selfish in nature. Sometimes self-interests of the peoples represented interests of all. Therefore, a nation
promoting collective interests and remaining within its own limits would not appear to be a sinister to
other nations. But Tagore lamented that, in reality, almost every nation practiced unrestrained selfishness
and involved in aggressive occupation of foreign land. As a result of the commercial adventurism of the
nations they became wealthy and prosperous. He further illustrated, “And this material prosperity not only
feeds continually the selfish instincts of the people, but impresses men’s minds with the lesion that, for a
nation, selfishness is a necessity and therefore a virtue. It is the emphasis laid in Europe upon the idea of
Nation’s constant increase of power, which is becoming the greatest danger to man, both in its direct
activity and its power of infection”. He also elaborated that nationalism, as it evolved in an unrestricted
manner, would debase the moral foundation of human civilization. To him “The ideal of the social man is
unselfishness, but the ideal of Nation, like that of professional man, is selfishness.”(Tagore:148).Tagore
was also aware of the fact that he only emphasized on the negative aspects of nation/nationalism. But he
should provide the solution of the problem. While responding to his friends in the West once he
remarked, “I have often been asked by my Western friends how to cope with this evil, which has attained
such sinister strength and vast dimensions. In fact, I have often been blamed for merely giving warning,
and offering no alternative. When we suffer as a result of a particular system, we believe that some other
system would bring us better luck. We are apt to forget that all systems produce evil sooner or later, when
the psychology which is at the root of them is wrong.” (Tagore:152). Therefore new institutions, replacing
the older ones, would not be able to tackle the menace permanently. Hence Tagore observed that the free-
thinking, open-minded, noble-hearted individuals could resolve the problem of narrow selfishness.

Tagore vehemently criticized western nationalism as embodiment of imperialism, narrow and aggressive
nationalism. Tagore firmly believed on universal humanism and human emancipation. To Tagore,
nationalism in the west represented `organised selfishness’ and `organised self interest of a whole people’
(Nationalism: 15). Nationalism was “Bartering of higher aspirations of life for profit and power which
cuts at the very roots of goodness, justice and truth in human’s relationship. Indeed nationalism promoted
and proliferated world-wide suspicion and great and panic.(Nationalism:26). It laid to the moral
perversion of human race and to the terrible absurdity (Nationalism:69-70).” Tagore viewed nationalism
as “impending calamity –a most dangerous think that undermines the supremacy of man”.(Nationalism:
69-70). Tagore elaborated that idea of nation/nationalism was emerged and evolved under different
circumstances in India and Europe. European nationalism tended to occupy the world market, conquer
and exploit. European nationalism was aggressive and expansionist in nature. Indian nationalism came
into being as resistance to the colonial domination and exploitation. Indeed Tagore clearly exhorted in his
writing on Nationalism that it created gulf among mankind and upheld racial supremacy and chauvinism.
Under the spell of nationalism people started worshiping the nation to which they belonged to. They
flaunted their superiority and sought to establish their pre-eminence by destroying other nations’
autonomy.

In the wake of industrialization and advancement of science and technology nationalism became slave to
capitalism. Capitalism for its ever increasing crave for expansion had taken over the west. Therefore
western nationalism/nation turned into a torch-bearer of exploitative and aggressive from of machine
civilization which devalued the moral consideration and human elements. The materialist crave
dehumanized the notion of nationalism and produced a new version of national solidarity which was
based self-seeking and self-serving demands and mechanical relation. Tagore thus ruminiated that
nationalism in this vision form was morality unacceptable. Tagore explaining the dreadful nature of
capitalist and imperialist expansion conceded that the force of commercialization resulted in
commodification of mankind. And the lust for gaining superiority and hunger for exploitation lead to the
unhealthy competition among the nations in the west. Consequently this mad race and antagonism turned
into catastrophic warfare among them, utter destruction of their own people and annihilation of other
nations. Tagore carefully differentiated between spirit of the west and the nation of the west. The spirit of
the west promoted and spread values like freedom equality and fraternity. On the other hand the nation of
the west was based on violence, destruction and devaluation of moral considerations. However,
predominance of the nation of the west suppressed spirit of the west and thereby the world became victim
of domination and subordination of European nationalism in the form of colonialism and imperialism.

Tagore mentioned that India did not witness the emergence of nation as it was developed in the west. In
his own words, “The word Nation does not occur in our language, nor does it exist in the country. We
have learnt of late to prize national greatness by virtue of European education. But its ideals cannot be
found in our minds.” (Sen:130). For centuries there was intermixing of numerous races in India as a result
of foreign invasion. Subsequently the invaders made this land as their habitation for generations.
Therefore different culture, languages, religion coexist in India. India society absorbed almost all the
elements and practices of all the races came from outside and resided and here. However their autonomy
had been preserved. Tagore stated, “The history of India does not belong to one particular race but to a
process of creation to which various races of the world contributed-- the Dravidians and the Aryans, the
ancient Greeks and the Persians, the Mohammedans of the West and those of Central Asia”(Nationalism:
15). Therefore Indian nation could be attributed with the principle of unity and diversity. Indian
civilization always valued morality, spirituality and it gave primacy to the society over the politics.
Tagore delineated, “Europe prizes political independence; we set store by spiritual liberation”.(Sen:130)
Hence neither nation nor nationalism in India professed and promoted violence, aggression and
exploitation of others. Indian national solidarity is based on the principle of `the whole world was her
family’. Tagore castigated western nationalism. He was quite confirmed of the fact that the pursuit of
installing or imitating Western version of nation in India would be counterproductive. He asserted that the
foundational basis of Indian and European nation was different. He stated, “The basis of Hindu
civilization is society; the basis of European civilization is the State. Man can attain greatness either
through society or through the State. But if we ever think that to build up the Nation after European
pattern is the only way open and the only aim of humanity, we shall be wrong.”(Sen:131).In another
article entitled ‘Indian Society’ Tagore claimed that unity among Indian people was existed in the pre-
colonial era. Unlike Europe, the source of the unity was laid in the Indian social system. Indeed, harmony
and co-existence among the Indian people was a social phenomenon and not a political project. He further
explained that the society exercised absolute control over human life. Most of the nations throughout the
world encountered several upheavals and strived for self-preservation, but in India the society meandered
through several obstacles and managed to survive for several centuries. Tagore was well aware of the
inherent aggressive nature and exploitative elements of the European nation. His pessimistic
understanding of the European conception of nation led him to observe, “The civilization as manifested in
the cult of the Nation has yet to be tested. But it is clear that its ideals are not ennobling; they carry the
evils of injustice and falsehood; there is a sort of terrible cruelty about the cult….”(Sen: 130-31)

Indeed his vision transcended the spatial notion of nation/nationalism based on exclusivity. His idea of
nation/nationalism elevated to the level of internationalism and ultimately got a cosmopolitan outlook.
Universal humanism, emancipation, sentiment of bounding and reciprocity and moral consideration were
the fundamental principles of Tagore’s idea of nation/nationalism. Tagore consider nation as a conscious
being, having a sole and inherent feeling of mental attachment among the people.
16.5 Idea of nation: V.D. Savarkar

Savarkar was one of the prominent trailblazers of Hindutva and Hindu Rastra in India. His fondness with
the Hindu identity grew in his childhood which was evident from his first publication entitled ‘The Glory
of Hindu Culture’. His early political career was started as a revolutionary nationalist, which was ended
with his imprisonment for being convicted in a case of attempting murder of Curzon Willy and A.M.I
Curzon in 1910. He submersed in the Hindu nationalist politics as soon as he was released from jail. He
founded Ratnagiri Hindusava in 1924. It was later merged with the Hindu Mahasava. He wrote the
‘History of War of Indian Independence’ in 1909 and declared Sepoy mutiny as the first war of
independence, shunning the clandestine effort of the British Empire to distort and demoralise Indian
nationalistic spirit. Another famous writing of him was a pamphlet entitled ‘Hindutva: Who Is a
Hindu?’(1923) which illustrated his conceptualisation of Hindu, Hindutva and Hindu Rastra.

V.D Savarkar formulated the idea of nation on the basis of kinship, communal identity and religious
affinity. His perception of nation was an amalgamation of territoriality and cultural nationalism. The
central argument of his version of nation was based on the identity of Hindu and Hindutva. He envisioned
of a Hindu Rastra to be established in India. Savarkar, for providing a comprehensive understanding of
the term Hindu, inquired the answers of the questions, “‘Who is a Hindu?’—he who is a subject to the
tenets of Hinduism. Very well. ‘What is Hinduism?’—those tenets to which the Hindus are subjected.
(Savarkar: 103) ”

At the outset he rendered a territorial definition of Hindu. He mentioned that the residents of the Sindhu
landscape had been denominated as Hindu. Here he sought to trace the origin of the nomenclature
‘Hindu’. In his perception the nomenclature ‘Hindu’ was originated from the name of the place of
habitation of that population. Savarkar mentioned, “…the word Hindu has been derived from the word
Sindhu, the Indus, meaning primarily all the people who reside in the land that extends from Sindhu to
Sindhu…”(Savarkar: 104). He further explained, “And then we actually find that the Vedic name of our
nation Sapta Sindhu had been mentioned as Hapta Hindu in the Avesta by the ancient Persian people.
Thus in the very dawn of history we find ourselves belonging to the nation of the Sindhus or Hindus and
this fact was well known to our learned men even in the Puranic period.”(Savarkar: 07). He believed that
a sense of nationality gradually developed among the people residing on the Sindhu river belts and they
emerged as a nation of Hindus. Savarkar elucidated that “the Aryans, had spread out to the farthest of the
seven rivers, Sapta Sindhus, and not only had they developed a sense of nationality but had already
succeeded in giving it 'a local habitation and a name!' Out of their gratitude to the genial and perennial
network of waterways that run through the land like a system of nerve-threads and wove them into a
Being, they very naturally took to themselves the name of Sapta Sindhus an epithet that was applied to the
whole of Vedic India….”(Savarkar: 05). And yet after their expansion to the furthest corner of India they
retained their nationhood. Savarkar further elucidated, “Thus as the horizon opened out to the South we
find that the centre of gravity had very naturally shifted from the Sapta Sindhus to the Gangetic Delta and
the name Saptasindhu or Aryawart or Daxinapath gave way to the politically grander expression
Bharatkhanda which included by the definition of our Nation attempted at a period when the vast
conception must have been drawing over the minds of our great thinkers.” (Savarkar: 13). Finally he came
to this conclusion that “… no word can give full expression to this racial unity of our people as the
epithet, hindu, does.”(Savarkar:89) Therefore, the term Hindu referred to a definite geographical area.
And certain common features were developed among the Hindus sharing a common land as their
residence, which led to the racial harmony among them. Thus a common place of living was one of the
preconditions of the Hindus’ to emerge as a nation.

Savarkar mentioned that the major source of solidarity among Hindus as a nation was to be close affinity
to their mother land and sharing a common bloodline among all descendants and compatriots. Thus he
asserted, “The Hindus are not merely the citizens of Indian states because they are united not only by the
bonds of the love they bear to a common mother land but also by the bonds of a common blood. They are
not only a nation but also a race-jati. The word jati...means a brotherhood, a race determined by a
common origin, possessing a common. All Hindus claim to have in their veins the blood of the mighty
race incorporated with and descended from the vedic fathers, the sindhus.”(Savarkar:84-85) The Hindus
were bound together by a common cultural thread. And the Sanskrit language was regarded as the mother
tongue, an element of commonness, of all Hindus. This vernacular was the repository of the cultural
practices of the Hindus. Savarkar thus expressed, “We Hindus are not only a Rashtra, a Jati, but as a
consequence of being both, own a common sanskriti expressed, preserved chiefly and originally through
Sanskrit, the real mother tongue of our race.”(Savarkar:100). Indeed, cultural homogeneity was a
fundamental principle which restored proximity and facilitated reciprocity among the Hindus. Savarkar
preferred to denominate this term as ‘Sanskriti’. He delineated, “Hindus are bound together not only by
the tie of the love we bear to a common fatherland and by the common blood… but also by the tie of the
common homage we pay to our great civilization—our Hindu culture, which could not be better rendered
than by the word sanskriti.”(Savarkar: 92-93). Moreover, Savarkar also mentioned that a Hindu must
consider this land as his pitribhu(fatherland) and punyabhu(holyland). He further elaborated that one
would be considered as Hindu if India was his birthplace and domicile of his ancestors and the religious
sect that he was belonged to had been originated in India.

Savarkar introduced a far more comprehensive term Hindutva in order to define the identity and nature of
the common bond among all Hindus. He clearly point out the distinction between Hinduvta and
Hinduism. As he envisaged, “Hindutva is not a word but a history. Not only the spiritual or religious
history of our people as at times it is mistaken to be by being confounded with the other cognate term
Hinduism, but a history in full. Hinduism is only a derivative, a fraction, a part of
Hindutva.”(Savarkar:03) He further explained, “Here it is enough to point out that Hindutva is not
identical with what is vaguely indicated by the term Hinduism. By an ‘ism’ it is generally meant a theory
or a code more or less based on spiritual or religious dogma or system. But when we attempt to
investigate into the essential significance of Hindutva we do not primarily—and certainly not mainly—
concern ourselves with any particular theocratic or religious dogma or creed. … Hindutva embraces all
the departments and activity of the whole Being of our Hindu race.”(Savarkar:04) In order to make the
notion of Hinduvta more intelligible Savarkar reiterated, “A Hindu marrying a Hindu may lose his caste
but not his Hindutva. A Hindu believing in any theoretical or philosophical or social system, orthodox or
heterodox, provided it is unquestionably indigenous and founded by a Hindu may lose his sect but not his
Hindutva—his Hinduness—because the most important essential which determines it is the inheritance of
Hindu blood.”(Savarkar:90) So, Hinduvta represented the identity of Hindus. Indeed Hindutva referred to
one’s consciousness and characteristics of being a Hindu. It was the unifying factor among all Hindus.
Hindutva represented an inclusive and accommodative identity which bound all religious creeds and sects
originated in Hindustan to a common thread of Hinduness. Therefore Hindutva was a such an idea
composed of three essential elements: race(jati), culture(sanskriti) and territory(pirtibhu and punyabhu)

The religious creed of the Hindus had been regarded as Hindu dharma. There were divergent schools and
sects under the broader spectrum of Hindu dharma. Indeed he stipulated that there were different paths
and philosophical schools under the aegis of Hindu dharma. The Sikhs, Jainas, Lingayats, Samajis and
others were different branches of Hindu dharma. Therefore, the other sects and religious community
native to Hindustan were nothing but variants of a common origin. However preponderance of Hinduism
excluded or belittled other Hindu religious communities which were numerically inferior to the Hinduism.
Hence Savarkar firmly believed that the internal differences among Hinduism and other Hindu religious
creeds prevented the Hindus to consolidate as a single and united nation.

Nevertheless Savarkar thought that Hindus belonging to different schools had been acculturated to Hindu
culture and they considered this land as their Pitribhu (fatherland) and Punyabhu (holy land). Savarkar
asserted that Christianity and Islam were not native to this land of Hindustan because they recognized the
far away land of their origin in Arabia or Palestine as the sacred place or holy land. Thus neither the
people belonging to these religions nor the Hindus converts indoctrinated to those religions could ever be
regarded as Hindu. Therefore a Hindu would not be considered as Hindu if he relinquishing his own
religion embraced religion of foreign origin, i.e. Christianity and Islam. Savarkar categorically mentioned
that the people belonging to foreign religious sect living in this land might consider India as fatherland
but they could never revere this land as their holy land. Hence their love, compassions and allegiance to
the land of residence would be fragmented.

An important objective of Savarkar’s formulation of the idea of Hindu identity was to preclude other
minority Hindu community to be aligned with the Muslim. He was afraid of the communal overtone in
the claims of the Muslims to secure their representation. The growing strength of the Muslim League also
made him anxious of their future intentions. Therefore, He appealed to the Hindu minority community
that they could claim their demands and representation and other essential and specific demands on the
basis of their numerical strength and status. But he also clarified that they must avoid carefully, while
doing so, separatist orientations or an approach of damaging interests of the majority Hindu community.
He believed that the national and communal aspirations of the Hindus were synonymous. In his
reckoning, nationalism in Hindusthan was the national communalism of the majority community. As the
Hindus numerically outnumbered the other communities therefore they should be considered national
community and they should be vanguard of nationalism which would be branded as Hindu nationalism in
this land. However Savarkar stated that the other minority communities would be granted fair shares in all
avenues of their lives. They would be ensured representation proportionate to their population and merit.
He sought to minimize all sorts of interventions and claim of shares of the non-Hindu people. Even
Savarkar declined to grant any sort of privileges and preferential treatments to the non-Hindu community.

Estimation

At first, the idea of nation advocated by Iqbal, Tagore and Savarkar should be reviewed in terms of
viability. In fact it is not difficult to find out the elements of idealism in their conceptualization of the idea
of nation. It may cause serious damage to the plural social structure of India if the blueprint of nation-
building conceived by Iqbal and Savarkar would have ever been implemented. Indeed the claim of
establishing either a Muslim state or a Hindu state in a country like India is inconsistent with the cultural
plurality and diversity of the nation. Moreover, a longstanding and irresolvable clash would destabilize
India if any of the two communities would be allowed priority or superiority over the other. However
Iqbal and Savarkar highlighted through their understanding and interpretation the problems of national
cohesion and distress of the Muslims and the Hindus. On the other hand Tagore’s perception regarding
the crisis of nations brought forth the catastrophic effects of national self-exaggeration. Tagore’s idea of
nation was elevated to the level of internationalism and turned in to a cosmopolitan world-view.