Lecture 20: Parts of Speech

Assignment No. XXXII. (a) Identify ‘Parts of Speech’ in the following paragraphs; (b)
read the excerpt carefully and write a note on ‘The Need to Develop National
Consciousness’.

'PATRIOTISM is in political life what faith is in religion, and it stands to the domestic feelings and to
homesickness as faith to fanaticism and to superstition.' Patriotism, like faith, is fundamentally a state of mind.
There may be, and usually are, visible, material and tangible agents which create or promote patriotism. But in
essence it remains a spiritual feeling. To pursue Lord Acton's analogy a little further, we may say that as faith is
created and strengthened by the Book, the place of worship, the history of the creed and religious relics, so
patriotism is born and fed upon: the concepts of a territory, a human group, a literary or artistic inheritance, a
language and political history. But by themselves these agents are not enough. They have to be sustained by a
feeling that our faith is the true faith and that our patriotism is the right patriotism. There must be a conviction
that our faith is not heresy, that our patriotism is not mere chauvinism. To create this belief people seek foundations
for their faith or patriotism. These foundations or bases constitute the psychological factor in nationalism.

The importance of this factor is obvious. It is a very weighty factor-sometimes even more significant
than the historical or cultural ingredients. History may all be wrong and culture may be a farce, but you cannot
quarrel with the feeling of a people that they are a separate entity. You may not agree with them, but that would
not affect their feeling of separatism.

In India the psychological factor gained even greater significance because Muslim nationalism (not
unlike Hindu or Indian nationalism) did not receive strong support from either history or language or culture. By
normal standards set by the theoreticians of nationalism neither India nor Muslim India could be called a nation.
Several ingredients were missing. And so the final argument on which the claimants of nationalism took their
stand was the argument from psychology. They felt that they were a nation: therefore they were a nation. No more
effective definition of nationalism has yet been suggested than Renan's, and he based his theory on the simple but
powerful fact that if a people feel strongly and passionately that they make up a nation, historical wisdom as well
as political prudence dictate the acceptance of this claim. The clash of nationalisms in India was, as we will see
in this chapter, basically a psychological conflict. The battle was fought not so much on the field of politics as in
the minds of men -a battle ground where a different set of weapons is used, weapons like myths and symbols,
images and legends, pride and hero worship.

Robert Michels was right when he said that the essence of I nationality lies, above all, in the will of a
people. There are the usual components of a national spirit which we have mentioned in the preceding pages, but
the common will to live and belong together transcends them all. If all these standard ingredients were absent, but
the will was present, it would still be possible to have a national group.

As a 'pragmatic' or 'historical' factor, nationality has existed in history for a long time, but it is only
through consciousness, or rather the awakening of it, that it becomes the 'absolute' factor. In the words of Hans
Kohn, 'nationality is formed by the decision to form a nationality'.

Muslim nationalism conforms to this theory (or to part of it) to an extraordinary extent. It was the result,
not of blood (race is a fiction), nor of a common language (the Bengalis did not speak Urdu), nor of pure religion
(many Muslims were recent converts from Hinduism), nor even of a shared territory (not a single province was
completely Muslim)-but of consciousness. It was the power of an idea which constituted and moulded it. Material
facts, of course, helped the configuration, but the real driving impetus behind the movement was spiritual-
'spiritual' in the broader rather than the religious sense. Without a sufficient measure of national consciousness
there would have been no idea of separation, and therefore no nationalism.

National consciousness is an exceedingly complex process. It is a sort of a group consciousness working

on a larger canvas. It arises from, as well as causes, group solidarity. It aims at discovering, and then
communicating to the people, the links which make for their unity. It points out the aims the pursuit of which
becomes the duty of the group. It is not a uniform process, but contains many strands and variations ranging from
definite ideology to feeble doubt.

The first indication that a national group has 'arrived' is the development of a consciousness of the fact
that all the members of that group belong to one nationality. They must believe that they belong to one nationality.
But that should not be taken to mean that each individual member of the group shares the will to live together.
The Muslim League never claimed that it spoke for every single Indian Muslim. Nor was Pakistan the demand of
all Muslims living in the sub-continent. There were some who were just indifferent to politics; there were others
who did not agree with the League brand of politics; there were still others who did not care what befell their
community. The national will must be shared by a great majority of the group. National consciousness does not
have to spread to every nook and cranny to qualify as such.

The spirit of nationalism is actuated by three types of motives: traditions, interests and ideals. Traditions
are 'patterns of behaviour which are regarded as values simply because they are a collective heritage regardless of
any reasons of utility, beauty or supernatural sanction'. An interest is a 'claim regarded as useful to the existence
and well-being of the group'. An ideal is an 'aim which is not a direct interest of individuals. It is regarded as
possessing a high authority, and thereby has the power to command obedience and the sacrifice of individual
interests'. The traditions connect a nation with its past, the interests with its present, the ideals with its future.

It is not always possible to distinguish between these three motives. They form a part of a psychological
sub-structure on which nationalism is built. National consciousness means the awareness of this sub-structure.
Muslims were conscious of their being a nation when they became aware of their traditions and heritage, whether
Indian or Islamic; when they came to know what their interests were and what was conducive to their safety,
freedom and prestige; and when they came to have their own ideals of what they wanted to achieve.

National consciousness is another name for having national aspirations. These aspirations can relate to
four things: unity, liberty, individuality and prestige. For Muslim India unity meant that all Muslims were one
political body, with common social and economic ideas, professing the same religion and owing allegiance to the
same cultural heritage. Liberty implied to them not the independence of India as a whole (thought that was a part
of their programme), but liberation from British as well as Hindu domination and from any external pressure or
interference. Individuality was for them the assertion of their separateness and distinctness: they were not the
same as other Indians, they were different. Prestige conveyed to them the idea of distinction; they wanted honour,
dignity and influence, if possible in India, if not in a separate State of their own; they did not want to live as a
helpless minority without self-respect.

The significance of these aspirations lies in the fact that they crystallized the psychological force behind
Muslim nationalism. It was not enough to have a common religion, a common language or a common history.
People must be conscious of their past and of their future. They must be aware of their individuality. They must
believe that they are different from others. This belief was the hard core of their nationalism, and the most difficult
to challenge or counteract. You can debate on historical antecedents, on linguistic unity, even on ideology. You
cannot argue with faith.

NOTE: The excerpt has been taken from the chapter The Psychological Factor, from the book Making of Pakistan, written by K. K.
Aziz.