ILOO

(DU1N

 

1.11123»

lllllllllllllllllllHilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

31293 01019 2015

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
The Legacy of Anti-Colonialist Nationalism: Reflections On

Jawaharlal Nehru's National Philosophy and Contemporary Indian
Cultural Politics.

presented by

Suparna Bhaskaran

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

 

Masters degree in Anthropology
may :1. GM 3%
Major professor
1 1 - 1 1- 1993

Date

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to roman this chockom from your record.
TO AVOID FINES Mum on or before dato duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WM!

THE LEGACY OF ANT I-COLONIALIST NATION ALISM:
REFLECTIONS ON JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S NATIONAL PHILOSOPHY
AND CONTEMPORARY INDIAN CULTURAL POLITICS

By
Suparna Bhaskaran

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Anthropology

1993

ABSTRACT

THE LEGACY OF ANTI-COLONIALIST N ATION ALISM: REFLECTIONS ON
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S NATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND
CONTEMPORARY INDIAN CULTURAL POLITICS

By

Suparna Bhaskaran

This thesis explores the relationship between national culture and nationalist ideology in
India within colonial and ‘post-colonial’ locations. The texts of Jawaharlal Nehru and his
are explicated, analysed and assessed within ‘post-colonial’ cultural politics. While
maintaining that Nehru significantly contributed to a post-British India, I suggest that some

of his formulations were inherently paradoxical and problematic for a post-colonial India.

Nehru’s political philosophy must be analde terms of its relevance for existing historical
conditions that is, in the colonial era as well as in a post-1947 India. The historical
relationship between political culture and material conditions is viewed in conjunction with
a changing consciousness, shifting political alliances and rising ‘separatist’ movements
within India. Specifically, I discuss the historical circumstances of, and the problem ‘in
and of’, Jammu and Kashmir. 1 demonstrate the tension between national culture and
ideology, and the problems of the legacy of anti-colonialist nationalism. To conclude, I
suggest that nationalist ideologies within post-colonial contexts are confronted with the
additional dilemmas of dealing with a trans-national notion of community and multiple

politics of location.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my thesis committee members, Dr. Judy Pugh, Dr. David
Dwyer and Dr. Richard Peterson, for their encouragement, theoretical insight and
careful critique of my work.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
1. Introduction 1-8
2. Jawaharlal Nehru’s Biography 9-10
3. Central Nehruvian Conceptualizations 11-16
3 .1 Revolution
3.2 Nationalism
3.3 The Nation
3.4 The Unity of India
3.5 State Formation
4. Nehru’s Concepts of Nationalism: 17-22

An Analysis of it’s Strengths and Limitations

5. The Problem in and of Kashmir 23-26
6. Kashmir Today 27-29
7. Conclusion 30—34
8. Bibliography 35-36

ii

1. INTRODUCTION

I have lived in the United States for the past six years under the category of an
F -1 student, or rather, as an international student. This experience, accompanied by
my growing awareness of the political, cultural and ”separatist” movements and
conflicts unfolding in India, has led to my increased interest in the discourse of
national identity and nationalist ideology.

Debates about identity that range from a continuum of extreme particularism or
separatism to a universal notion of common humanity, have occupied contemporary
social inquiry and activism. Considerations about identity characterizes our present
epoch. These considerations, along with the interconnectedness with colonial and
post-colonial events, add to the fragmentary and alienated history of modernity.
This essay provides an account of the discourse of nationalism which addresses
some of the pervasive dilemmas of modernity, such as the construction of
nationhood, the role of revolution in relation to colonialism and state formation, and
the contestations and the eventual acceptance of ideologies into cultural life.

Anthropological literature on national culture has grown out of what have been
referred to as the‘national character studies’ of the 19303 and 19405. Amoung its
proponents were Ruth Benedict, Geoffrey Gorer, Margaret Mead, and Abram
Kardiner. These authors suggested that national character or culture constituted
personality traits of specific nations. This psychological and behavioral approach
examined individual traits which they then attributed to cultural characteristics of a
nation.

According to such national character theories, national character was analogous
to national culture; as such it was believed to reveal fundamental cultural traits

which typified a nation. These cultural traits included personality traits that

2
ultimately defined individual psychologies. Socialization (via parents and kin) was
the key factor in the production and reproduction of these traits.

After the 1940s, a declining interest in national character studies was followed
by modernization theorists. Modernization theorists were primarily sociologists and
political scientists by training. In rejecting the psychological approach of national
character studies, modernization theorists placed an emphasis on economic and
political structures along with a sense of evolutionary history that mechanically
transformed traditional societies into modern ones. In this view, modern institutions
such as the state (infrastructure) shaped the national culture, rather than society
(socialization) shaping the national culture. Features of modern society included
" . .urbanization, industrialization, education, internalization of modern values. . "

A theorist who was influenced by national character studies and modernization
theory was Clifford Geertz. Geertz was also an influential figure in the development
of the paradigm of ‘interpretive anthropology,’ which rejects some of the totalizing
aspects and evolutionary drinking of modernization theory. Geertz describes
nationalism as "amorphous, uncertainly focused, half-articulated," ”highly
flammable," and the "major collective passion in most new states."2 The project of
collectivizing mass consciousness is primarily undertaken by nationalist
intellectuals. According to Geertz, the construction of political and geographic unity

is based on shaky ‘cultural foundations’ because it draws from the problematic

 

1Fox, Richard, ed. , Nationalist Ideologies and the Production of National Cultures,
American Ethnological Society Monograph Series, Number 2, 1990.

2Geertz, Clifford, pg 237, ”After the RevolutionzThe Fate of Nationalism in the New
States”, in The Interpretation of Cultures.

3

equation between anti-colonialism and ”collective redefinition. "3 Nationalist politics,
entailing the collective definition of a nationhood, constituted state formation and
state building. The ideology of nationalism, for Geertz, entails a symbolic
framework, characterized by the tension between epochalism and essentialism.‘

Geertz’s commentary on the processes of nationalism and its inherent tensions
is insightful; however, he still seems to be trapped in a mutation of the ”Parsonian
theory of culture. " Geertz considers the ”Parsonian theory of culture" as "one of
our most powerful intellectual tools” toward understanding the ideological
dimensions of nationalism. Geertz notes, that the rhetoric and idioms of nationalist
consciousness, in its mission of creating ”systems of beliefs” or ”pattems of
meaning," is self-detrimental to a culture because its paradoxes are infused in social
institutions. However, Geertz’s exposition on the contradictions of nationalist
metaphors does not provide an account of how systems of power or self-interest
infuse politicized culture. For example, the Indian National Congress and Nehru
symbolized unity, freedom, self-rule and democracy. It is important however, to
systematically document and understand the formation of political structures of the
new nation-state. Political and economic institutions are the crystallizations of
human activities, which in turn shape future human actions and conflict. Geertz
refers to a "cultural crisis” that inflicts and infuses social, political and economic

spheres within a colonial and post-colonial framework, but he does not discuss

 

3Ibid

‘Geertz describes epochalism, as having a notion of a historical spirit or telos of a
nation that is moving towards national integration and progress. The position of
epochalism is exemplified by Jawaharlal Nehru’s national philosophy. Essentialism is the
view that there are some fundamental cultural and\or religious essences to a nation’s
coherence. This position is exemplified by M. K. Gandhi. [Geertz, 243, "After the
Revolution: The Fate of Nationalism in the New States” , in The Interpretation of Cultures].

these crises.

Geertz’s notion of a ”cultural crisis" can be understood through Partha
Chatterjee’s systemic and historical analysis of Indian nationalist thought. Cultural
crisis, according to Chatterjee, is explained as the emergence of tensions from the
paradoxical character of nationalist ideology. As noted by Chatterjee, nationalist
thought is polemical because it seeks political power whereby the colonial state is
to be replaced by the nationalist state. It is further "shot through with tensions, "
because it is in fundamental conflict with colonial discourse. The constitution of
nationalist discourse maintains its uniqueness by borrowing certain elements of
rationalist drinking, but at the same time producing a different discourse. This
discourse is paradoxical and different, but still dominated by another discourse.

Furthermore, Chatterjee suggests that nationalism and orientalism occupy key
positions within the sphere of colonialist and post-colonialist ideology. Orientalism,
notes Edward Said, is a style of thought based on an "..ontological and
epistemological distinction made between ‘the Orient’ and (most of the time) ‘the
Occident’."’ This process entails the production and domination of the Orient
"politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically, and
imaginatively. . "‘

Nationalism and orientalism must be understood within the historical
development of ideas that are in a dialectic with political culture and existing
economic forms. Additionally, Chatterjee notes that nationalism and orientalism

could be identified by two major characteristics: the thematic and the problematic.

 

sSaid, Edward, Orientalism, Vintage Books, 1970.
61bid

5

The thematic aspect of social ideology refers to the moral\ethical principles that
influence elements or the relations between elements within a set framework:
" . identification of historical possibilities” and justificatory structures. The
problematic aspect represent statements, claims or historical possibilities that are
actually justified by an existing moral standard.

The problematic aspect in nationalist thought is however, exactly the opposite
of that of Orientalism. The fundamental focus in both discourses is ”the Oriental” ,
and "the Oriental" still maintains her\his "essentialist” features prescribed by
Orientalist discourse. In the case of Orientalism, ”the Oriental" attains agency by
clamoring for reason and autonomy. On the other hand, one can thematically draw
parallels between Orientalism and Nationalist thought, in so far as they both create
similar typologies, such as ”east’ and "west”, and resort to drawing from the ideals
and knowledge created by the post-enlightenment era and Western science. It is
here that one can see the inherently contradictory nature of nationalist thought,
where ”it reasons within a framework of knowledge whose representational
structure corresponds to the very structure of power nationalist thought seeks to
repudiate."7 Additionally, Chatterjee notes that this paradoxical element suggests the
problematic and thin feasibility of the success of social transformations and the

"theoretical insolubility" of nationalist thought within the post-colonial framework.

Chatterjee provides insight into contradictions inherent in nationalist thought,

 

7Chatterjee, Partha, Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative
Discourse, pg 36, Zed Books, New Delhi, 1986.

8Ibid

6
as well as a useful analogy between orientalism and nationalism. His idealist thesis,
however, is limited to an exploration of the history of ideas. Richard Fox goes
beyond Chatterjee to provide a processual account of the connections between
nationalist ideology and its cultural production under changing material conditions.
He further addresses the ramifications of the success or lack of success of a
nationalist agenda in attaining hegemony.

For Fox, national culture is constantly being reproduced and produced. It is
processual and entails confrontations between communities. From these
confrontations, " . .emerge nationalist ideologies from which in turn, a national
culture gets produced. '9 National ideologies include conceptions such as,
"nationalisms," "sub-national identities," "ethnic nationalisms,” ”racial identities,"
and refers to the ”cultural productions of public identity. The constitution of
peoplehood can be understood from how communities or persons are conceived by
themselves and by others, rather than through categories produced from a rigid,
static and classificatory view of culture. Elite and mass consciousness
accompanying the sense of public identity confronts already existing cultural
meanings and conceptions. If these confrontations are successful, there emerges a
national culture. "A national culture is always ‘temporary’ because, whether antique
or recent, its
character and puissance are matters of historical practice; they are plastic
constructions, not

cultural givens".‘° This approach provides a view of ”nationalism” or "nationalist

 

’Fox, Richard, ed., Nationalist Ideologies and the Production of National Cultures,
AES Monograph Series, Number 2, 1990.

l°Ibid.

7
ideology” in terms of changing cultural forms and reflections on what Benedict
Anderson refers to as an ‘imagined community’or a nation. Fox however, claims
that the ‘imagined community’ is not just ‘mass fiction,’ and thus he (Fox) stresses
that the universal nationalism implied by Anderson, could be a form of objectivism.
It is this processual view of ‘nationalism’ or ‘nationalist ideology, ’ that informs my
thesis.

In this essay, I address Jawaharlal Nehru’s nationalist philosophy, and thus
suggest that Nehru’s significant contributions to the Indian revolution and state
building entailed the process of constructing a national ideology which required a
certain degree of contestation between other ideologies, but eventually emerged as
the prevailing national culture. In outlining some of Nehru’s key formulations, it is
possible to view the underlying framework of Nehru’s ideology of secular-
socialism.

Nehru’s secular-socialism was confronted by other national agendas of pro-
Muslim and pro-Hindu factions within and outside of the Indian National Congress
(the reasons for their initial failures is discussed in a later section). First, I present
Nehru’s primary concepts as a process of cultural production of ideas and material
reality. Nehru’s national philosophy won mass support, and evolved as the national
culture of India. No national culture is permanent and this irnpermanence is
indicative of the current emergence of nationalist ideologies throughout the nation.
Specifically I document the history of pro-Kashmiri or pro-Muslim ideology which
was an important force during Indian independence and the Indo-Pak partition. The
uprisings in Kashmir are historically connected to the reluctance on the part of the
princely states to join either India or Pakistan (which is discussed later).

The massive disenchantment in Kashmir involving dissatisfaction with political

8
infrastructure, economic development and the promise of democracy, equality, and
general well being, made by secular-democratic-socialism, is a crucial element in
identifying peoplehood. Public discontent has erupted into political culture through
several violent ways. Disenchantrnent with the legacy of anti-colonialist nationalism
informs the political culture of contemporary India. In presenting the case of the
state of Jammu & Kashmir, I discuss the relationship between national culture and
nationalist ideology, and present issues of massive disenchantment that confront a

post-colonial nation-state.

9
2. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S BIOGRAPHY:

Jawaharlal Nehru was born on the 14th of November, 1889, in Allahabad,
India. Until the age of fifteen he was educated at home by tutors, after which he
was trained in the natural sciences and law at Trinity college in Cambridge. In
1912, at the age of 23, he returned to India and enrolled as an advocate for the
Allahabad High Court. In 1913, Nehru became a member of the United Province
Congress. By 1917 he was elected secretary of the Home Rule League at
Allahabad, and was admitted into the All India Congress Committee. In 1919,
Nehru met M.K. Gandhi and began participating in the non-cooperation movement.
Between 1919 and 1923 Nehru was arrested several times by the British
Government for participating in several civil disobedience movements that were
organized by Gandhi. In 1929, Nehru was elected president of the Indian National
Congress .“

Nehru’s political thought was influenced by a myriad of intellectual
orientations, including Gandhi, Marx, the Enlightenment tradition, and Vedic
philosophy (specifically the monism of Advaita philosophy). Nehru primarily
sought a democratic and ‘scientific socialism’ for an independent India. Unlike
most Indian nationalists, Nehru hoped to avoid romanticizing India’s past and he
stated that he hoped to find a deeper meaning to India’s historical evolution and to
the vitality and resilience of Indian civilization which had survived through the
centuries, despite of invasions and apparent declines.

Nehru’s major works, '2 written while in prison, reveal his formulations on the

 

1’Jawaharlal Nehru:An Anthology, Edited by Sarvepalli Gopal, Oxford University
Press, New Delhi, 1983.

12"Glimpses of World History", "The Discovery of India", and ”Autobiography".

10
interconnections between free humanity and socialism (which he sometimes used
interchangeably with nationalism and democracy).

In this paper, I draw from some of Nehru’s texts to document and present his
key formulations on why it was necessary to identify India as a nation-state. Within
this process of identification was the preliminary consensus between intellectuals,
nationalist leaders and the general public, that foreign domination was illegal and
needed to be eliminated. Furthermore, it was necessary for Nehru (and allied
nationalists) to propose a nationalist ideology that took into account the material
reath of domination, and documented the cultural history of India. The
documentation of a cultural history was necessary to point out that an essential
India does exist and will always exist. Once the nation was identified, it was also
imperative for Nehru to establish a state apparatus and a potentially viable form of
government (in an independent India), and thereby construct a viable nation-state.

Consequently, it was also necessary for Nehru to elaborate on the tools
available to achieve freedom. It is here that Nehru elaborated on the concept of
”revolution.” He distinguished different forms and types of revolutions, and
eventually selected one best for India. Moreover, Nehru discussed the concept of
nationalism, and types of nationalisms, and proposed a theory of anti-colonialist and
nationalism. The production of this theory is further explicated and discussed as

Nehru’s nationalist ideology of secular-socialism.

l 1
3 . CENTRAL NEHRUVIAN CON CEPTUALIZATIONS

3.1 REVOLUTION

For Nehru, revolution and change were co—extensive and inevitable facts of
history. Revolution was viewed as a natural and necessary symptom of the ”national
body politic.“ Furthermore, revolutions aim at the well being of the majority of
the people and become a means to an end, which is social stability, security and
human emancipation. Thus the preconditions and the driving force behind any
revolutionary movement are discontent and dissatisfaction.

Revolution, Nehru noted, must be radical and thus, the liberation of India was
not a reform movement, nor was it reactionary. Resistance against foreign rule is
justified, necessary and unavoidable, he argued but revolution cannot stop there.
The revolutionary process needed to continue after overthrowing the British, and
here Nehru used revolution interchangeably with progress and change. Even after
independence, Nehru proclaimed, "Remember this, we are still the children of the
Indian Revolution”, "..we have not ceased to be revolutionaries.”

The form of revolution Nehru called for was the Gandhian strategy of
satyagraha. This strategy embodied the doctrines of non-cooperation (mass or
individual civil disobedience) and non-violence. In following this path, Gandhi felt,
communities are led to the "truth,” which ultimately meant that the means collapsed
with the ends. Gandhi stated "....aneye for an eye makes the whole world blind,"

which suggests that a movement that is grounded in peaceful strategies and moral

 

‘3 Sankar Ghose, Modern Indian Political Thought, Allied Publishers, Calcutta, 1984.

" M.N. Das, The Political Philosophy of Jawaharlal Nehru, 45, The John Day
Company, New York, 1961.

12
reasoning will lead to an ethical and peaceful society. This strategy is elaborated
further in what Nehru refered to as ‘his brand of nationalism.’

3.2 NATIONALISM
Nehru called for a nationalism that was grounded in liberal-socialist and secular
values. Moreover, this form of nationalism was constituted by an understanding of
history, culture and tradition; an attachment to a geographic region; solidarity
among persons; collectivization against oppression; and collective freedom in the
form of liberty and equality. "This nationalism aimed to identify itself with political
democracy, laying stress on popular sovereignty, general will and national
government. ”’5 The framework of this understanding of nationalism was satyagraha.
According to Nehru, the world was divided into two vast camps, namely the
imperialist and fascist on the one side, and the socialist and nationalist on the other.
Indian nationalism was a form of socialism that stood opposed to imperialism,
fascism, nazism and the evils of capitalism. "Fascism and imperialism thus stood
out as the two faces of decaying capitalism, which were opposed by socialism in
the West [namely the Soviets] and the rising nationalism in the east. "’6 Nationalism
in the east was the ”historical urge to freedom” and fascism\nazism was ”the last
refuge of reaction"(Essays II, 70, Presidential address to National Congress,
Lucknow, April, 1936) Although sometimes Nehru used nationalism and socialism

interchangeably, he was critical of the totalitarian nature of Stalinism in the Soviet

 

l"’Ibid

’6 Sankar Ghose, Modern Indian Political Thought, 305, Allied Publishers, Calcutta,
1984.

13
Union.

Nehru notes that although the British brought about political unity through
regional domination of India, they were also instrumental in provoking forces to
combat them (the British). These new forces, in the form of nationalist
consciousness, sought to maintain geographical and political unity, and to gain
freedom from British control. Additionally, Nehru posited that the British who
created an empire (or Raj) founded on domination, had to deal with the crumbling
and resistance of those very foundations. As far as Nehru was concerned, the
British Government’s divide and conquer policy was inherently paradoxical. The
notion that foreign domination was unethical required the complementary notion of
what was rightfuuy "India," or the nation-state. Nehru’s next project was therefore

to define a nation, a state, and a nation-state.

3.3 THE NATION

The central political objective of national consciousness was, for Nehru, the
building of a nation-state, that would embrace all people, give everyone an equal
right of citizenship irrespective of sex, language, religion, caste, wealth or
education.

”Sometimes as I reached a gathering, a great roar of welcome would great
me:Bharat Mata Ki Jai—-Victory to Mother India! I would ask them unexpectedly
what they meant by that cry, who was this Bharat Mata, Mother India, whose
victory they wanted? My question would amuse them and surprise them, and then,
not knowing exactly what to answer, they would look at each other and at me. I
persisted in my questioning. At last a vigorous Jat, wedded to the soil from
irnmemorial generations, would say that it was the dharti, the good earth of India,
that they meant. What earth? Their particular village patch, or all the patches in the
district or province, or the whole of India? And so question and answer went on,
till they would ask me impatiently to tell them all about it. I would endeavour to do
so and explain that India was all this that they had thought, but it was so much
more. The mountains and rivers of India, and the forests and the broad fields,
which gave us food, were all dear to us, what counted ultimately were the people of

14

India, people like them and me, who were spread out all over this vast land. Bharat
Mata, Mother India, was essentially these millions of people, and victory to her
meant victory to these people. You are parts of this Bharat Mata, I told them, you
are in a manner yourselves Bharat Mata, and as this idea slowly soaked into their
brains, their eyes would light up as if they had made a great discovery"l7

Although to many nationalists the "idea” of a Mother India carried utopian,
dream-like, passionately real meaning, with Nehru it was more of the language of
politics. A political slogan whereby he and ”they" could collectivize and debate at
meetings. The nation was the whole people, and within this unity Nehru was
acutely aware of the immense cultural separation between ”people like them and
me.” Implicit in Nehru’s notion of Bharat Mata was ”unity through diversity," a
political slogan still popular and interpreted in various ways today. A united India

was the core of Nehru’s cultural essentialism.

3.4 THE UNITY OF INDIA

The unity of India as a nation was Nehru’s central concern toward the later part of
the freedom movement. For Nehru the unity of India was a synthesis of an
intellectual conception as well as an emotional experience. He further felt that
although under varying historical phases India was politically divided, kings and
emperors of the past had always sought to unite the geographical region of India.
These attempts at unification succeeded to some extent, but the British had
managed to gain the most political unity for a sustained period of history (between
150-200 years). This unity also entailed the synonymous development of
transportation, communication and modern industry.

Nehru seemed to consistantly posit an idealist vision of the historical idea or the

 

’7 Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India, 48-9, John Day, New York, 1946.

15

spirit of India in which unity comprised a persistent essence or spirit of peoples,
through historical phases. He further indicated that this contemporary unity ”was a
unity of a common subjection" which would give rise ”to the unity of common
nationalism. " ”It was not a superficial idea imposed from above, but a fundamental
unity which had been the background of Indian life for thousands of years. "’8

Political and cultural unity for Nehru was closely bound with economic
reforms. ”But the real problems of India, as of the rest of the world are economic,
and they are so interrelated that it is hardly possible to tackle them separately. "’9
Thus, for Nehru there would be no narrowly Muslim or Hindu nationalism or
linguistic nationalism if the spirit of revolution continued. This spirit or force of
revolution needed to attack the agricultural and land system, and unemployment, as
well as synthesize the scientific application of industry with c00perative farming.
Nehru’s vision of a modern, free India was one of democratic socialism, where
casteism and communalism needed to be mitigated effectively. Finally, Nehru felt
that peaceful nationalisms would eventually lead to the possibility of
internationalism.

”Some people talk of one nation one culture, one language. That cry reminds
me of some of the Fascist and Nazi slogans of old. We are one nation of course,
but try to regiment it in one way will mean discord and conflict and bitterness. It
will put an end to the richness and variety of India and confine and limit the
creative spirit and joy in life of our people" (Presidential Address, Indian National
Congress, 58th Session, January 17th, 1953).

 

’8 Jawaharlal Nehru, The Unity of India, 29, Lindsay Drummond, London, 1948.
”lbid

16
In order to realize Nehru’s vision of an Indian nation the development of the
infrastructure into a parliamentary republic was neccessary. Such a republic would
require an emphasis on centrist politics. The Indian parliament was thus constituted

as a variant of the Westminster model.

3 .5 STATE FORMATION

Nehru was a staunch advocate of a liberal state, specifically, the Westminster
model of parliamentary democracy. Nehru’s vision of parliamentary democracy or
democratic socialism embodied characteristics such as centrism, secularism and
federalism. The center allowed for differences and a certain degree of autonomy of
local governments at the state level while at the same time the central government
acted as the ultimate coordinator and unifier of the nation-state.

Moreover, in adhering to secularism, all religious groups in India (Muslim,
Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Jewish, etc.) were to be given equal recognition.
”What it means is a state which honours all faiths equally and gives them equal
opportunities; that, as a state, it does not allow itself to be attached to one faith or
religion, which then becomes a state religion."20 This, he felt, should not be much
of a task for Indian society becausee India had a long history of religious tolerance.
In maintaining a scientific temper, religion and politics needed to be placed in
separate domains at a safe distance from each other.

The Nehruvian democratic state also aspired to maintain a balance of the "state
versus society” relationship. In other words, Nehru deemed it absolutely essential to

maintain an apolitical army, by allocating higher power to civilian over military

 

2"Nehru, Jawaharlal, in "Jawaharlal Nehru: An Anthology", edited by Sarvepalli Gopal,
Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1983.

17

factions in the government.

In the following section I analyze the adequacies and paradoxes of Nehru’s
philosophy and its relevance to contemporary culture. I argue that Nehru’s key
ideas embraced a notion of a transformed humanity, one that is initially driven by a
spirit of common history and culture toward self-rule and social equality; however
his vision, would ultimately lead to a collective world community fundamentally

based on a concept of internationalism.

18
4. NEHRU’S CONCEPTS OF NATIONALISM: AN ANALYSIS OF IT’S
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

Nehru’s political and national philosophy tended to make paradoxical
distinctions and equations between frequently used categories such as capitalism and
socialism, or the nationalism of the east and the nationalism of the west, in its
initial task of providing a national philosophy that gave coherence, solidarity, and
direction to the masses and the Indian National Congress. Furthermore, in his
pursuit of a ”scientific temper" and the Westminster model of parliamentary
democracy, Nehru seems to be ambiguous about a crucial dimension of a nation
undergoing revolution, namely that of ”culture".

In rejecting the profit hungry capitalism of the west, Nehru seems to ascribe to
the east (specifically the Sub-Continent) a form of spiritual essentialism. He falls
into an east-west or spiritual-material dualism. According to Nehru the British were
politically more disciplined and organized, but morally and ethically lagging.
Consequently, noted Nehru, Indians may have had some problems gaining
materially but ”in matters involving humanity and respect for the individual and
group, India was far more advanced and had a higher civilization"21

Additionally, in his conception of nationalism of the east (i.e., revolutions that
are anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist) and the nationalism of the west (socialism, or
any anti-capitalist stance without the forms of Stalinist authoritarianism), Nehru
fails to address the close connection between nationalism and capitalism. Nehru
states that the two prominent examples of the evils of capitalism are nazism and

fascism, capitalism thus cannot generate any other forms of nationalistic

 

21Nehru, Jawaharlal, "The Discovery of India”, pg 196.

19

movements. The rise of capitalism has been in itself a crucial dynamic in the rise
of the middle class, national bourgeoisie, and modern nation-states”. The rise of
nationalism can be equated with the rise of print-capitalism, the standardization of
calendrical time and the rise of vernacular languages. Benedict Anderson explicates
the close interconnection between national self consciousness (for him the nation
being an "imagined political community, ”’3 where memberships are anonymous in
character) and language. Print-language gave language fixity, where differences in
dialects gave rise to ‘languages of power’ or standardized dialects that were closer
to print languages. The spread of education thus resulted in an increase of print-
literacy and bilingualism, which gave the colonial world linguistic access to
alternative models of nationhood. The ideology of nationalism is closely intertwined
with the rise of modern linguistic communities. Nehru recognizes the
communicative role of the printing press in fueling movements, but fails to
acknowledge the close and re-enforcing relationship of capitalism and modern
nationalism.

Socialism for Nehru was a form of civilization and a scientific method of
”social analysis.” It was a scientific mode of social inquiry which focused attention
on the economic domain which he viewed as the root of social and religious

conflicts. Socialism also signified a transformed humanity. Nehru however, seemed

 

27’The pattern of state formation in Europe needs to be distinguished from state
formation in India. State formation in India needs to be understood as being driven by an
amalgam of the pre-British Mughal state, Gandhian theory and liberal theories of the state.
Furthermore, Indian state formation and nation-building, under Nehru and the Congress
Party, is for the most part characterized by class reconciliation [versus the specific class
conflicts between feudal lords and the bourgeoisie, or the bourgeoisie and the proletariate].

23Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism, Verso, London, 1983.

20
to inconsistently call for a synthesis between socialism and "enlightened capitalism, "
in order to create a democratic socialism. A weaknesses in this formulation of
socialism is his lack of attention to labour or social labour. Nehru’s concepts could
consequently be viewed as invidualistic and anti-agricultural, considering that the
majority of the population was employed in agricultural labour.

Nehru’s ambivalence to capitalism was characterized by an underlying notion of
a probable mixed economy (e. g. , socialist and capitalistic institutions, with primary
power in post-British India vested in state run institutions rather than the private
sector). For Nehru, the state would be the principal actor controlling the excesses of
private capital. In its initial formulations, such a relationship [private-public sectors]
was deemed acceptable to most industrialists because it provided for laws
protecting domestic indusrries. The monopoly of the state and its possible evils in
India were never addressed by Nehru. The parallels between a capitalist mode of
production and a mixed economy is significant. Nehru’s democratic socialism could
thus be viewed as a variant of the capitalist mode of production.

Nehru felt that there was never any consistent form of centralized states in the
subcontinent.“ Therefore, the success of a liberal state in a united India depended
on a rational reconciliation of linguistic, ethnic, religious and regional identities.
The crucial binding element for this process was industrialization, the growth of a
scientific community and economic interdependence among regional groups. Nehru
perceived this economic and political networking as strengthening national

integration. Additionally, Nehru would refer to the ”mind of India,” whereby

 

7“There is archaeological and historical speculation that states that, forms of centralized
governments have existed during different phases of Subcontinental history. For example,
the cities of Mohenjodaro and Harappa [Indus Valley Civilization, 2300 BC], or during the
Mughal Empire [15th century, AD].

21

"some kind of a dream of unity has occupied the mind of India since the dawn of
civilization. “’5 However, India’s "coma-like" state or "mental stupor,” can be
revitalized by "modern consciousness" ." Such a ”modern consciousness” was, for
Nehru inherently paradoxical because its primary driving force was the influence of
British culture, capitalism and political policies. On the one hand, this dynamic
consciousness can reject stagnation and induce change, but on the other hand, it
destroyed the local agrarian system with the introduction of private property.

Within the paradigm of progress and industrialization, Nehru seemed to leave
out an important element, that of culture. Nehru seemed to have ”accepted the
orientalist view that the traditional culture was ill-suited to modern India and best
left alone to die an inevitable historical death".27 As far as Nehru was concerned,
the ”spirit of science” was necessary to remove the political and cultural decline of
India. The period of decline for the Indian civilization was inevitable for Nehru,
because ”there are repeatedly periods of decay and disruption in the life of every
civilization.” According to Nehru, throughout history India had always rejuvenated
itself through several nationalist movements,” and Swaraj (self-rule) would

certainly do the same.

 

2’Nehru, Jawaharlal, "Discovery of India”, pg 31.
2"Ibid, pg 23.

27Bikhu Parekh, ”Nehru and the National Philosophy of India”, Economic and Political
Weekly, pg 35, January 5-12, 1991.

2"Nehru, Jawaharlal, "The Discovery of India”, pg125.

2”Nehru distinguishes these movements as being primarily religious in nature, such as
hindu revivalism of the ”Golden Age” of the Gupta Kings. Nehru’s maintains that
nationalism of the congress was in no manner religious, cult-like, reactionary or genetic [
Nazism].

22

An integral aspect of culture and the ideological domain is education. Nehru’s
emphasis on education was at the university level, whereby scholarship was an
instrument of producing ”trained manpower, " rather than an interactional, dynamic,
and revolutionary activity in relation to political culture and nation-building. Thus,
education was primarily viewed by Nehru as being in the domain of the
development of ”scientific temper" and technology. The issue of primary and
secondary education was given little attention and the colonial structure of the
system was never questioned. Schools included (and still do) private, public,
convent-run, secular, vernacular or ‘English-medium.’ By and large, the English-
medium and convent-run are considered most prestigious to this day. Moreover,
school curricula continue to follow a primarily British mode of testing. To add to
the lack of any educational policy, Nehru seemed ambiguous regarding a definite
linguistic policy concerning education.

Although Nehru was adroit with his political language in addressing the realities
of different classes, his elitism is explicit when he refers to the knowledge of
peasants. For the rural audience, which was the majority of the sub-continent, he
deemed it necessary to draw from mythical references in Indian history (e.g., the
notion of a King Bharat from the manuscripts of the Rig Veda, 500-1000 BC).
Bharat Mata, or Mother India, was initially clearly an important political slogan for
the elite lead Indian National Congress in organizing the masses. Nehru himself
admits that it was Gandhi’s entry into the politics of the Indian National Congress
that enabled the freedom movement to unite the masses with the founding members
of the Indian National Congress. Nehru refers to Gandhi as the key mobilizer and
instigator of the psychological domain of the anti-colonialist movement among

Indians of all classes, religions, genders and ethnicities.

23

Finally, I would like to address Nehru’s droughts on parliamentary democracy.
Nehru preferred to adopt the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy for
independent India. He felt that this was one way in which the communal and
regional interests could be integrated. Such a model of government involved a
federal and centrist administration, with an autonomous center (New Delhi) and a
relatively autonomous regional states. It is not clear, however, whether Nehru
questioned the adequacies of the Westminster model for Indian conditions, or
considered other alternatives like other leaders such as Gandhi, Vivekananda, M.N.
Roy, Sadar Patel or Aurobindo.’o In the case of Kashmir, the notion of a
parliamentary democracy is currently being primarily challenged by the model of
an Islamic state.

In the following section I address the problem "in and of" Kashmir, as colonial
and post-colonial predicaments. During the time of independence and partition, as
well as during the British Raj, the princely states of Jammu and Kashmir plagued
British administrators and Indian nationalists. I argue that although Nehru and his
supporters managed to assimilate Kashmir into the Indian Union, the economic,

cultural and political ramifications have affected several factions in India.

 

3"The alternatives to Nehru’s model of the state were the Gandhian State, the Hindu
State, the Islamic State (which at that point in history resulted in Pakistan), and a highly
authoritarian state. The strongest contenders to the Nehruvian model were Subhash
Chandra Bose and Sardar Patel. Both advocated a highly authoritarian state. Bose felt that
"....Hitlerand Mussolini represented the wave of the future....,"and that India and Japan
should collaborate in this venture. Although he formed a government in exile in Japan,
with German and Japanese support during the early forties, he died in 1945. Although
Patel initially had advocated an authoritarian Hindu state, he to Gandhi and Nehru. Patel
died in 1950, thus eliminating any major threat to Nehru for the next 17 years.

 

 

24

5. THE PROBLEM IN AND OF KASHMIR

Ever since India and Pakistan gained independence in 1947 , the question of
Kashmir has plagued India-Pakistan relations. The constant border uprisings have
attracted the attention of nations such as China, the former Soviet Union, and the
United States. Although the focus of the superpowers on Kashmir at one point
”sometimes stood as a surrogate for larger global interests, " the shift in superpower
relations has shifted attention from Kashmir over other global conflicts.31

"The Kashmir conflict is rooted in the colonial history of the Sub-continent. "’2

 

At the dawn of independence, prior to British withdrawal, there existed two major
factions of nationalist political leadership. The Indian National Congress, lead by
Jawaharlal Nehru, espoused a democratic and secular State. The Muslim League,
lead by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, felt that it was necessary to have separate Muslim
and Hindu States. The Indian National Congress and Nehru contended that British
India with its diverse religious, ethnic, and linguistic groups could ”coexist only
under aegis of a strong secular state."33 The Muslim League claimed that Muslim
and Hindu histories and customs were distinct and needed to be maintained
separately in divided nation-states. Further, Jinnah felt that a predominantly Hindu

India (State) would discriminate against the Muslim minorities.

 

Debates between the Muslim League, the Indian National Congress, and the
departing British Government, finally led to a complicated and hurried decision.

The Muslim majority States (which included the division of Punjab in the west and

 

3’Ganguly, Sumit, ”Avoiding War In Kashmir”, pg 57, Foreign Affairs, Winter, 1990.
32Ibid
33lbid

25

Bengal in the east) became Pakistan (i.e. West Pakistan and East Palcistan), the
states with a high Hindu population became India. Further tenacious problems of
the princely states lay ahead, however several princely states (of the total 565
princely states) had visions of independence following British decolonization. Lord
Mountbatten, however, under pressure from Nehru, gave the princely states an
ultimatum to either join India or Pakistan.

Under the rule of Maharaja Hari Singh, Kashmir, was among the several
princely states that sought independence. Nonetheless, unlike other states, Kashmir
had a different religious demography. Although Kashmir was under a Hindu

 

monarch, its population was significantly Muslim. The situation was further
complicated by the existence of a secular and democratic movement led by Sheik
Mohammed Abdullah (a Muslim). Sheik Mohammed Abdullah’s party, the Kashmir
National Conference, was a popular movement in the valley. 3’

In the midst of these debates, the western border of Kashmir was attacked by
Pakistani troops disguised as tribespeople (who joined local Pathan tribespeople).
As a result of this attack, the wavering Maharaja asked for India’s assistance, and in
retum promptly acceded to the Indian Union. Nehru’s intervention was followed by
the 1947 India-Pakistan War.

 

The 1947 War resulted in the Pakistani occupation of the north-west portion of
Kashmir (prior to the Indian military stopping the Pakistani advance); the north-
west portion of Kashmir was named Azad (”Free”) Kashmir; and finally a United
Nation (U .N.) ceasefire was in effect by January lst, 1949. Pakistani ‘occupied’
Kashmir was provisionally integrated into the Pakistani State and Kashmir was

 

3"Josef Korbel, Danger in Kashmir, 89, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1966.

26
given a ”special status (in the Indian Union) under Article 370 of the Indian
Constitution. Among other matters it allows only native Kashmiris to own
immovable property. " ’5
By the early 19503, India’s administration expanded over Kashmir, despite
unresolved dialogues (concerning the plebiscite) with the United Nations. In 1951,
the Kashmir National conference (under Sheikh Abdullah) gained an overwhelming
victory in the local elections. By 1953 , however, conflicts between Abdullah and i
one of his lieutenants [Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed] increased, coupled by
Abdullah’s conflict with the Central Government. Abdullah’s conflict with the
Center (New Delhi) involved problems with resource allocations (i.e., funds
allocated by the Central government to local governments) to Kashmir as well as
some controversial remarks made by Abdullah regarding Kashmir’s position in
relation to the Indian Union. These conflicts led to the imprisonment of Abdullah,
a movement piloted by Bakshi Mohammed (who was also backed by the Center).
Clearly these developments were viewed by the Pakistani Government as the
possibility of a pro-Pakistani sentiment in Kashmir.
Meanwhile in Pakistan, the military ruler, President Mohammed Ayub Khan,

along with a rising young politician Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (the, father of Benazir

 

Bhutto), began re-evaluating the United Nation resolution concerning Kashmir. This
re-evaluation involved testing the Indian military response. In 1965 Pakistan
attacked the area of the Rann of Kutch (Western Gujerat), but by referring the issue
to the International Court of Justice, India achieved a ceasefire. Following this

incident, the theft of the Hazaratbal (a sacred Muslim relic) led to riots in Kashmir.

 

”Sumit Ganguly, Avoiding War in Kashmir, 59, Foreign Affairs, Winter, 1990.

27
These developments provided an avenue for the Pakistani attack on Kashmir in
September, 1965. However, this war ended in a few weeks ”under a considerable
pressure from the international community, including a U.S. arms embargo on the
warring parties..".’° Finally, in 1969, Ayub was overthrown by a military coup.

Peaceful relations did not last long, and in 1971, another war between Pakistan
and India erupted. This war was fought on the western part of Pakistan (directly in
relation to Kashmir) and on the eastern part of Pakistan (which seceded from
Pakistan to form independent Bangladesh). Kashmir received relatively less
attention during this war.

On July 2nd, 1972, the Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India, Zulfikar Ali
Bhutto and Indira Gandhi, met at Sirnla (India) to sign a crucial treaty regarding
Kashmir. The agreement stated that "the two countries are resolved to settle their
differences by peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them".37 As historical
events since 1971 indicate, however, the interpretations made by the two countries
clearly differ. India deemed it unnecessary to involve external agents and preferred
to avoid any internationalization of the Kashmir issues, whereas Pakistan claimed

that international attention would hasten the process of legitimating Azad Kashmir.

 

3“Ibid

37Percival Spear, The Oxford History of Modern Indiazl740-l975, 339, Oxford
University Press, New Delhi, 1988.

28
6. KASHMIR TODAY

In 1989, uprisings in Kashmir were directly related to a wave of
‘ethnolinguistic’ and ethnic sub-nationalism that covered the whole of India. The
first such wave of ‘ethnolinguistic’ sub-nationalism occurred in the 1950s
concerning the linguistic divisions of the states of India. The latest wave of sub-
nationalism was preconditioned by the success of India’s "positive discrimination"
or affirmative action policies.38 The affirmative action policies facilitated the entry
of India’s minority groups (linguistic, caste, and religious) to the realm of politics,
employment, and education. This further contributed to increased interactions, often
violent, between Muslims (minorities) and Hindus in northwest India. Additionally,
Kashmir’s domestic problems have been aggravated due to the dubious politics the
dominant Congress(I) party (under the leadership of Indira Gandhi and later, her
son Rajiv Gandhi). In order to create larger constituent support in certain states, the
Congress(I) ”forged dubious alliances" with local parties. This included unfair
electoral procedures in local elections. Clearly these actions blatantly insulted the
democratic procedures set up by the Indian National Congress, and impeded any
avenues for democratic protests.

In 1986, under the Rajiv Gandhi government, such a dubious alliance was
struck by the Congress(I) and the Kashmir National Conference (under the
leadership of Farooq Abdullah, the son of Sheik Abdullah). "The Kashmir elections
of 1987 were marked by chicanery and deceit on a scale not witnessed in recent

years in India”.”

 

3"The Telegraph, Calcutta, 13th October, 1990.
”Ganguly, Sumit, ”Avoiding War in Kashmir”, Foreign Affairs, pg 63, Winter, 1990.

29

The repression of democratic forces, corrupt electoral procedures, economic
underdevelopment, high unemployment rates, and finally religious and ethnic
tensions, have systematically led to militant uprisings in Kashmir. There are three
primary groups in Kashmir that are actively involved in such uprisings, and within
these groups are several sub-factions. First is the explicitly pro-Pakistani group,
which is comprised of Muslim fundamentalists with links to the fundamentalist
Pakistani Party (J ammait—i-Islami). Groups associated with this orientation are: the
Muslim Students Federation, Islami-Jammiat-Tulba, and the Hezb-ul-Mujahideen.
Second is the J ammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) (which is the oldest
secessionist group, established in 1965). Along with the JKLF are sub groups such
as the Kashmir Students Liberation Front, Mahaz-i-Azadi, and the Kashmir
Mujahideen Liberation Front. The JKLF want an independent state of Kashmir.
And finally, there is the Jammu and Kashmir People’s league which is explicitly
pro-Pakistani.‘o

Membership in these groups have been estimated conservatively at 5000,
primarily comprising of young and college educated people. However, although
these groups have been successful in preventing the existence of a cohesive
centralized governing body in the Kashmir valley, they too have lacked cohesion,
which may be attributed to ideological differences and conflicts between group
leaders.

The overall escalation of uprisings in Kashmir has led the Indian Government
to make accusations against the Pakistani Government. For example, Pakistan has

been accused of providing military and financial support; supporting camps in Azad

 

“’Ibid

30
Kashmir; and actively seeking the help of neighboring Arab nations. India has
further reason to believe that a fundamentalist group (Hezb-i-Islami) in
Afghanistan, led by Gulbudin Hekmatyar, is providing aid to the uprisings. This
connection with Afghanistan is primarily due to encouragement of the Pakistan
Internal Agency and Afghani dissatisfaction with India’s Afghan policy. In addition,
all Pakistani political leaders have always included in their electoral speeches a
historical claim to Kashmir. "After all this is one issue that unites the Pakistani
people by evoking memories about Pakistan’s troubled relations with her principal

 

n41

adversary, India .
The simation in J ammu and Kashmir represents the historical development of
ideologies and material relations that were repressed and subjugated at one point in
history, but grew in force as an anti-Nehruvian ideology. The cultural construction
of the ”Kashmiri" involves the rejection of what it means to be an Indian
(Bharatiya) and what constitutes Bharat Mata. Groups identify themselves either as
members of a ”Free Kashmir" that is, independent of India or Pakistan, or as pro-
Pakistani. The identification of being Kashmiri is based on being Muslim and a
defender of an Islamic state. The Islamic state would be completely oppositional to

Nehru’s secular—democracy. Therefore, as far as proponents for ”Azad Kashmir”

 

(Free Kashmir) are concerned ”a particular national ideology requires an :tL

independent state or autonomous territory for its realization.“2

 

"Ibid

”Fox, Richard, ed. , Nationalist Ideologies and the Production of National Cultures,
AES Monograph Series, Number 2, 1990.

31
7. CONCLUSION

According to Ernest Gellner, prior to the 19th century the word ”nacion" meant
"..the aggregate of the inhabitants of a province, a country or a kingdom” and
sometimes a foreigner. The modern concept of nation required a connection of a
body of citizens with its political organization, the state. This state linked the nation
to a specific geographic region. The process of this linkage entailed the
development of vernacular languages, print media, and a cultural elite, that
encouraged the transmission of cultural histories of the nation. In addition, the
widely held concept of the nation-state in Europe " . . . .irnplied national economy and
its systematic fostering by the state, which in the 19th century meant
protectionism.“ Bourgeoise-liberal ideology in 19th century Europe identified three
features of an authentic nation. First, the nation-state was seen as the logical
evolution of the family and the assimilation of small communities. Second, this
principle of progressivism involved territorial expansion and national unification.
This process of expansion and consolidation provided the nation-state with the
military capabilities for further conquests.

Nationalist ideologies in the ‘third world’ were propounded primarily by an
elite group that identified the nation. An interconnected event was the development
of vernacular languages and the print media. Like their European counterparts, the
elite leaders of ‘third world’ nations drew from somewhat similar concepu'ons of

the nation-state. The Indian nation-state was thereby characterized by a process of

 

”Gellner, Ernest, Nations and Nationalisms, pg 1, 1983.
“Hobsbawm, Eric, ”Nations and Nationalism since 1780”, pg 29.

32
unification of geographical regions and citizens, but it had the added agenda of
national liberation.

Two forms of nationalist ideologies within the Indian sub-continent have been
discussed and historically located in this paper. First, a ‘secular’ and unifying
nationalism of Nehru (and his supporters in the Indian National congress) was
primarily fueled by the need to overthrow colonial domination, and attain political
emancipation and unification of communities of differing religions, ethnicity,
language and socio-economic affiliations.

The second form of nationalist ideology focuses on combatting a national
culture established by a ‘secular’ national liberation ideology; it is characterized by
further religion and socio-economic divisiveness. This movement is primarily draws
most of its mass support from disgruntled, educated, and unemployed youths who
direct their dissatisfaction at the Indian government, which has failed to meet the
democratic-secular standards of the Nehruvian nation-state. Furthermore, this form
of nationalism is the kind of reaction that is unhappy with the legacy of anti-
colonial nationalism and the hegemony of the post-colonial state, and that several
nation-states of the third world face today.

Nehru’s national philosophy entailed defining a nation, "India,” in terms of a
cultural history. The nation needed to be linked with a political state, which adopted
a version of the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy. To be succesful,
the Indian nation-state required the assimilation of communities differing in
language, religion, class, caste, and ethnicity. The Nehruvian ‘secular’ ideology was
a crutial constitutive factor.

The national ideology of the proponents of "Azad Kashmir” is also rooted in the

colonial history of the Raj and the Indian sub-continent. The political manoeuvering

 

33
between leaders of the Kashmiri princely state, Indian Government and the
Pakistani Government, however, ultimately paved the way for accession of Kashmir
to the Indian Union. This process, built on unstable foundations, has produced
uprisings and skirmishes regarding linguistic issues emerging from the 19508,
culminating in an explosive contemporary situation. Undemocratic actions of the
Indian government have systematically lead up to the reactionary movement of
"Azad Kashmir”. This ideology posits an ”Islamic" state for Kashmir. Moreover, the
Azad nation is regarded as either free of India or Pakistan, or a part of Pakistan
(which also is an "Islamic" state).

The fundamental violations of the Nehruvian standards of a socialist-secularism
have led to several undemocratic measures by the Indian Government. These
violations comprise both historical breaching of political processes as well as initial
paradoxes of post-colonial nation-statehood. The central government has meddled
with local governmental procedures and electoral processes to the point that the
State resorts to authoritarian solutions. This includes the increasing infiltration of
the military in the Valley to replace a growing corrupt police and paramilitary units.
The central government, which has for the most part been the Congress Party, has
maintained an inconsistent policy with the National Conference, from Sheik
Abdullah to Farooq Abdullah. The Congress Party along with other parties who
have occupied central power insist on using politically manipulative rhetoric such as
blaming the Pakistanis or the Americans. Political slogans, along with the help of
the media, charge the political climate with the ideology that the Indian government
is doing its best to keep its enemies at bay. This is not to reject the possibility that
either Pakistan or China may be involved in the issue concerning sovereignty of

34

Another development that has occurred in the Indian political system is the
growing fragmentation and personalized politics of the Congress Party. The
simultaneous and mutually reinforcing concepts of national integration, democracy,
and a unified Congress Party, were consistantly inherent in the nationalist
movement, particularly under the leadership of Nehru. Strained relations and
conflicts began in 1969, under the leadership of Nehru’s daughter - Indira Gandhi,
when the Congress Party split of to a Congress(I) ("1" being for Indira). This is not
to suggest that the supposed symbolic imagery of a unified Congress reflected a
unified nation, rather, I argue that increasing political fiagmentation and
undemocratic procedures and the structural and ideological domains of culture
mutually constitute one another.

Other fragmentary features that plague national culture stem from a lack of
attention given to linguistic policies, the restructuring of the educational system and
affirmative action policies. Also, the discrepancies resulting from a "mixed"
economy produce and maintain inequities in both the state run and privately run
sectors.

The nationalist ideology of Nehru and the Congress Party eventually contituted
the national culture of independant India. This national culture like any other
culture has been in constant flux. This flux can be linked to unresolved or
ineffectively addressed historical tensions and contradictions. These paradoxes may
range from an infrastructural appartus of a ‘mixed economy’ to explicitly violent
military advances. The Kashmir Valley is just one example of such historical
tensions.

Potentially, the ideology of "Azad Kashmir" can expect to be confronted with
similar problems. Initially, there is the conflict regarding whether to join Pakistan.

35
By joining Pakistan, "Azad Kashmir” will inherit existing and additional problems,
such as the escalating factionalism within the Muslim community. Will Kashmiri
Muslims or Kashmiris be treated democratically? Such dilemmas resulting from
confrontations between a universal-unificatory nationalism for the ‘common good’ ,
and specific-particularistic nationalisms, will enevitably plague such communities.
This thesis leads me to ask other questions concerning the intertwined forces of
social movements. For example, can uprisings even begin addressing issues
pertaining to male supremacy in Kashmir and the rest of India?

Finally, it is necessary to explore the significance of the "nation” and
"nationalism,” in an increasingly transnational world. How viable can these notions
be in a transnational climate with ever increasing divisive categories? Concepts of
nationalism that rejected colonial administrations implicitly called for a form of
intemationalism, and paralleled 18th century notions of an expansive national

economy. Nationalism, ....isno longer, as it were, a global political
programme....," and has to take into consideration broader international and
domestic divisive pressures. It is here that the issue of cultural essentialism is
relevant. I suggest that one encounters different forms of essentialism. The type of
essentialism that claims a narrow identity politics based on local blood, genes or
behavioural traits is whatNehru regards as dangerous. However, an identity politics
that does not fall into such narrowness and takes into account political and
historical location, needs to be taken seriously. The identity politics of Nehruvian
nationalism considered only a few factors, limited to being elite, male and Indian.

Although the identity politics of Azad Kashmir, limitedly addresses economic

 

“Hobsbawm, E. J ., "Nations and Nationalism since 1780", pg 181.

12-
AF- ‘- .
A

36
inequalities, it oscillates between narrow racial and religious ideologies. As a result,
both forms of nationalist ideologies are informed by a restricted interests. These
restrictions must be initially widened by incorporating pluralist interests such as: the
politics of scarcity, anti-patriarchal politics, and ultimately an understanding of

India’s geopolitical location.

37
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdel-Malek, Anouar, ”Orientalism in Crisis,” Diogenes, Vol. 44 (Winter 1963),
pg.102-l40.

Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread
of Nationalism, London, Verso, 1983.

Brass, Paul R, The Politics of India since Independence, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 1990.

Chatterjee, Partha, Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World -A Derivative
Discourse, The United Nations University, Avon, Zed Books, 1986.

Chatterjee, Partha, ”Colonialism, Nationalism, and the Colonized Women: the
contest in India,” American Ethnologist, Vol. 4, 1989, 622-633.

Das, M.N.,The Political Philosophy of Jawaharlal Nehru, New York, The John
Day Company, 1961.

Davis, Horace B, Toward A Marxist Theory of Nationalism, New York, Monthly
Review Press, 1978.

Fox, Richard, ed., Nationalist Ideologies and the Production of National Cultures,
AES Monograph Series, Number 2, 1990.

Ganguly, Sumit, "Avoiding War in Kashmir,” Foreign Affairs, 1990 (Winter),
pg.57-74.

Geertz, Clifford, The Interpretation of Cultures, New York, Basic Books, 1973.
Gellner, Ernest, Nations and Nationalism, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1983.
Ghose, Sankar, Modern Indian Political Thought, Calcutta, Allied Publishers, 1984.
Giddens, Anthony, ”The Nation-State, Nationalism and Capitalist Development,” in
A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism, Berkley, University of
California Press, 1983.

Gramsci, Antonio, ”The Philosophy of Praxis,” in Selections from the Prison 1
Notebooks, edited by Q.Hoare and G. Smith, New York, International Publishers,
1971.

Hobsbawm, E. J., Nations and Nationalism Since 1780. Programme, Myth, Reality,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Jayawardena, Kumari, Feminism and Nationalism in the Third World, New Delhi,
Zed Books, 1986.

38

Kauffman, L.A., ”The Anti-Politics of Identity,” Socialist Review, Vol. 20, Jan-
March, 1990.

Kohli, Atul, Edited by, India’s Democracy: An Analysis of Changing State-Society
Relations, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1988.

Korbel, Josef, Danger In Kashmir, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1966.
Marcus, George and Fischer, Michael, Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An
Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences, Chicago, University of Chicago
Press, 1986.

Marx, Karl and Engels, Fredrick, The German Ideology, edited by C.J. Arthur, New
York, International Publishers, 1988.

Nash, June, "Nationalism and Fieldwork," in the Annual Review of Anthropology,
Vol 4, 1975, pg.78-93.

Nehru, Jawaharlal, The Discovery of India, New York, John Day Books, 1946.
Nehru, Jawaharlal, The Unity of India, London, Lindsay Drummond, 1948.

Parekh, Bikhu, ”Nehru and the National Philosophy of India,” Economic and
Political Weekly, Jan 5-12, 1991, pg.35-47.

Thapar, Romila, A History of India: Vol. 1, New York, Penguin Books, 1966.

Rudolph, Lloyd and Rudolph, Susanne, In Pursuit of Lakshmi:The Political
Economy of the Indian State, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Rushdie, Salman, Midnight’s Children, New York, Avon Books, 1980.
Said, Edward, Orientalism, New York, Vintage Books, 1979.

Spear, Percival, The Oxford History of Modern India: 1740-1975, New Delhi,
Oxford University Press, 1988.

Williams, Raymond, Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, New York,
Oxford University Press, 1976.

* "i11111111111111“