Description of the Module

Items Description of the Module

Subject Name Sociology
Paper Name Political Sociology
Module Name/Title The Nation and its Fragments
Module Id Module no. 23
Pre Requisites An understanding of theories of nationalism, Foucault’s
conceptualization of power/knowledge binary and governmentality.
Objectives This module seeks to understand the differential nature of the process
of emergence of nationalism in colonial and postcolonial societies.
Key words Nationalism, post-colonialism, governmental logic of state, modernity

Module Structure

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

Role Name Affiliation

Principal Investigator Prof. Sujata Patel Dept. of Sociology,

University of Hyderabad
Paper Coordinator Prof. Edward Rodrigues Centre for the Study of Social Systems
Jawaharlal Nehru University
Content Writer Shashwati Centre for Political Studies Jawaharlal
Nehru University
Content Reviewer Prof. Edward Rodrigues Centre for the Study of Social Systems
Jawaharlal Nehru University
Language Editor Prof. Edward Rodrigues Centre for the Study of Social Systems
Jawaharlal Nehru University
 Political Sociology

The Nation and Its Fragments

1. Introduction

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

different colonial contexts of Africa and Asia. With its roots in anti-colonial struggles in
most cases, the discourse of nationalism in the so-called Third world is conspicuous by
its distinct nature, especially in its divergence from the established discourse of
nationalism in the West that emerged since the sixteenth century. In highlighting the
distinct nature of postcolonial nationalism, the main intention of Chatterjee is to
deconstruct the supposedly universal model of nationalism (of a Western European
variety) that is assumed to hold true for all nations alike, which however, refuses to
accommodate and acknowledge the differential histories of coming-into-being of
nationalisms in different parts of the world. Chatterjee begins his narrative of
postcolonial nationalism in India with a critique of Benedict Anderson’s version of the
idea of nation and nationalism as an ‘imagined’ community, which acquires a concrete
shape through certain institutions, especially that of ‘print capitalism’. According to
Anderson, the historical development of nationalisms in Western Europe, the US and
Russia serve as modular forms for rest of the world to choose from, especially for the
newly independent nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America following the period of
decolonization and democratization in 1940s-50s. According to Chatterjee, the specific
discourse of nationalism as it developed in the West, with attendant ideas of modernity,
development and progress, cannot be delinked from its colonizing propensity that
becomes explicit in the context of the so-called Third World. Therefore, the universal
model of nationalism as it emerged in the West signifying the onset of modernity cannot
but be a hegemonic discourse. It’s unfolding in the nations of Asia and Africa highlights
stories of not just colonial exploitation, but also that of a discursive colonization,
whereby political imaginations and possibilities of recovery and development in the
newly independent nations remained entangled within the webs of such a hegemonic
discourse.

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

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

with a critique of conventional histories that trace the beginning of nationalism with the
formation of Indian National Congress in 1885. In such accounts, nationalism is reduced
to being a mere struggle for political power. The institutional history of coming into
being of Congress party and its gradual ascendance to power covers the history of
emergence of nationalism in India and also remains the determining feature of anti-
colonial struggle in the country. In contrast, Chatterjee’s own reading of history of
nationalism rests on a principle which, according to him, forms basis to the distinct way
in which the nationalist discourse takes shape in the specific history of a colonial country
like India. According to him, articulation of anti-colonial nationalism rests on a division
or separation between two distinct spheres, namely, the spiritual and the material. The
material realm is one of economy, statecraft, science and technology, in which the
superiority of the West, represented by the colonial power, is an established fact. In the
material domain therefore, the historical task before the colonized was to imitate and
reproduce for itself, the benefits of the project of colonial enlightenment and modernity.
The spiritual realm on the other hand, represented true sovereignty of the colonized. It
was a sphere of cultural distinctness from, and also superiority over, the colonizers of the
colonized people, and hence needed to be preserved that way. If the material sphere
represented the superiority of the colonial rulers, it was the spiritual domain which was
the main source of strength and autonomy of the colonized. Therefore, the spiritual
domain was one that needed to be preserved from all colonial encroachments. As was
evident, beyond a brief phase of enthusiasm on the part of the Indian social reformers for
British-initiated reforms in the customs and institutions of traditional society in India, the
latter half of the nineteenth century saw a vocal resistance against any action of the
colonial state to intervene in the ‘cultural traditions’ of the native people. This, according
to Chatterjee, symbolized nationalism among the colonized people. It effectively meant
that not only the colonial state was sought to be kept out of the spiritual or inner domain,
but also that any kind of reforms or intervention in the said domain would be completely
in the hands of the colonized masses. Therefore the essence of the ‘imagined’ nation
rested in the so-called spiritual or inner domain in which the colonized masses were
sovereign despite being ruled by an alien, foreign power in the material sphere.

The historic task before the nationalists was to preserve the sovereignty of their spiritual
or inner domain, while at the same time, to re-fashion it to fit the need of the changing
times, that is, they sought to reform and recreate the national culture to make it ‘modern’
in all respects. Visible efforts on the part of the nationalists were to produce a ‘modern’
national culture, which was yet prominent in its difference from the colonial culture by
being rooted in indigenous traditions and values. Therefore, nationalism manifested itself
in the spiritual domain in a completely different way than its course in the material
domain where it increasingly sought to be like the colonizers. In the remaining chapters
of the book, Chatterjee traces the history of nationalism- through examples from history
of colonial Bengal- as it charts a particular course in its efforts to reform the different
aspects of the so-called spiritual or inner domain. These different aspects of cultural
domain include that of language and literature, education, and family which the
nationalists sought to modify to make them in tune with the requirements of the modern
world. European influence on the Indian social reformers in each of these cases was
visible enough. However, the social reformers including the nationalists embarked on a
historical project to assert and establish their cultural differences with the West and prove
at the same time through necessary reforms, their own capabilities to determine their
future by fashioning a modern self for the nation.
Chatterjee cautions us against reducing the dual scheme of material and the spiritual to
being merely indicative of any kind of exceptionalism as far as Indian nationalism is
concerned. Rather, he insists that the respective histories of development of the two
domains of material and spiritual must be perceived in their mutuality to understand the
nationalist discourse in India. A nationalist historiography in the Indian context must take
into consideration the intertwined geneses of both spheres; each sphere posed as a
limitation as well as cast an impact on the other, determining it particular shape. The
project of modern politics introduced by the British in the colonial sphere had to
negotiate with and accord concession to the inner, cultural politics of the nationalists to
produce consent. Likewise, the ‘inner’ domain of subaltern politics had to readapt to the
institutional mechanisms introduced by the colonial rule in the elite or material domain.
This interaction between the two domains of politics is a characteristic feature of
postcolonial nationalism and has deep implications for the perceived universality of the
Western concept of nationalism. It also provides for a deeper analysis of the role played
by colonialism in the modern regime of power. Far from being a mere tangential question
to the discourse of power in modern times, colonialism is deeply implicated in way in
which modern forms of power manifest themselves in different historical contexts.
Therefore, a nationalist historiography which links the end of colonialism with
displacement of political rule of the foreign power is an incomplete one. The historical
narrative of unfolding of modernity in the context of India is a story of continued
colonization, a product of modern regime of power.

3. Rule of colonial difference as modern disciplinary power

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

power; by this scheme, power is productive or facilitative rather than being prohibitive.
Modern technologies and institutions of power rule not by being restrictive; rather, they
aim to normalize social regulations to guide or enable self-disciplining among subjects.
Instead of being prohibitive, modern power reconfigures the social environment in order
to guide and affect conduct of the inhabitants of that environment. According to Partha
Chatterjee, colonialism in the context of countries of Asia and Africa was the main
channel through which the disciplinary power of the modern state was exercised. It is
through the rule of colonial difference that the foreign rule maintained its power and also
produced consent for its rule. Rule of colonial difference implied that modern institutions
of self-representation and democracy could not be replicated in a society like that of
India, rooted as it was in deep-rooted hierarchies based caste and religion which made it
naturally unsuited to democratic organization and functioning. That the otherwise
universal principles and institutions of democracy and self-governance could not be
applied to the Indian context, was seen as an inevitable outcome of an inherently
backward, superstitious and authoritarian society in India. Therefore, the colonial powers
in India saw their primary task as being limited only to the administration of the country,
and ensuring welfare of the people, and professedly disowned the task of educating the
masses in liberal democratic politics. As a consequence, the colonial rule managed to
establish its difference from the colonized society, and needless to say, race as a category
became crucial to the articulation of that essential divide between the colonizers and the
colonized. Superiority of the colonial rulers as against the inherent backwardness of the
colonized society was affirmed by racial differences between the two broad communities.

The established rule of colonial difference had a more profound role to play in the
colonial scheme of things. It’s more important contribution was to accord legitimacy to
the grand exercise of modern colonial state to survey, classify and enumerate its subject
populations. On the pretext of knowing better the society that was meant to be ruled,
modern colonial state strived to gather as much information about the colonized terrain.
All the information gathered systematically through scientific ways, formed basis to
codification of laws, and it was this access to knowledge that was a source of power for
the colonial rulers. The link between knowledge and power here cannot be
overemphasized because it was owing to its prerogative in classifying and enumerating
the colonial society that the colonial rulers managed to cast an order on it, one that served
their interests and was in their control. This particular modality of governance by the
modern colonial state was facilitated by rule of colonial difference which affirmed the
disciplinary hold of colonial state over the colonized society. It was through rule of
colonial difference that the access of Indians to fair recruitment in colonial bureaucracy,
freedom of press, and public opinion was denied. A society considered not fit for a
responsible democratic system could find no use for its institutions as well.

4. Nationalist Response as an Act in Self-discipline

What was the response of the nationalists to the growing intervention of the colonial
rulers? The universality of modern regime and institutions of power, howsoever imposed,
was acknowledged by the nationalists in the material sphere and they were vehemently
opposed to rule of colonial difference which they saw as an assault on that universality.
Therefore, nationalist politics was aimed at removing any kind of difference between the
colonizers and the colonized in the outer domain of politics. Nationalist resistance to the
dominance of the colonizers in the material sphere was deemed possible only by fulfilling
the lack in self, that is, by equipping oneself with the superior techniques of the
colonizers as far as material life was concerned. This relation of subordination of the
nationalists in the material sphere was complemented by a relation of dominance in the
cultural sphere. The cultural realm was the domain of sovereignty for the nationalists
which they increasingly sought to keep out of the reach of any kind of colonial
intervention. Therefore, it from within the inner or spiritual domain of indigenous
culture- radically different from that of the colonizers’- that the nationalists derived an
autonomous agency or subjectivity that was articulated as key form of resistance to the
corrupting influences of colonial modernity.

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

colonial context of India was based on mediation between these two spheres, which
exposed both its possibilities and limits. The historic task to prove that the colonized
were not the ‘inferior other’ as projected by the rule of colonial difference, took the
nationalists to ‘modernize’ themselves in the material sphere. In contrast, the cultural or
spiritual essence of the nation needed to be preserved in its pristine and distinctive form,
precisely because it was the source of self-identity of the nation. This led the nationalists,
as Chatterjee says, to selectively appropriate aspects of western modernity, based on the
ideological premise that modernity of the west must be tamed so as to retain the essence
of national culture. The process of construction of a national culture that was both
‘modern’ and ‘Indian’ at the same time was an act in self-disciplining, that is, an
internalization of the disciplinary element of the modern regime of power. The
nationalists took upon themselves to reform and modernize aspects of cultural sphere to
make them suitable for modern times. Therefore in complex ways, the outer and inner,
material and spiritual, public and private corresponded to give shape to the hegemonic
project of nationalism in postcolonial society in India.

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

Partha Chatterjee calls the project of nationalism as the project of mediation in which the
historic leadership was provided by the colonial middle classes in Bengal. The ideology
of nationalism, including its dominant cultural form and institutions, were fashioned by
the enlightened intervention of the modernizing middle classes. Trained in the modern-
day language of legal constitutionalism and new forms of public discourse, the middle
classes adapted themselves to principles of modern government and political
mobilization. As citizens in a modern society exposed to western education and with
access to bureaucratic apparatus, the middle classes called for eradicating rule of colonial
difference which in itself made a mockery of principles of liberal democratic order. In
this way, the emergent nationalism in the political domain, led by the middle classes, put
faith in the modern regime of power and internalized it to cull out a modern public image
for itself. By contrast, in the sovereign sphere of culture, the colonized middle classes, as
script-writers of the nationalist discourse, had a completely different role to play. As said
earlier, the nationalists had to reformulate the inner cultural domain of nation as per the
requirements set by the new, modern times. Such a nationalist endeavor began with
recreating a past for the country, especially in form of a written history. History-writing
was pressed into service to lend credence to the nationalist project of building up a
nationalist culture that was indigenous (that is, one based on traditional values, different
from that of the west) yet modern. Such history-writing, on one hand, recreated a past by,
what Chatterjee terms as, a classicization of tradition. Traditional values symbolizing the
essence of an indigenous culture were invoked, in turn making them timeless and
indispensable to the history of the nation. On the other hand, during the course of history-
writing, the nation’s past was divested of all the undesirable values, both in terms of form
and content, that reflected its un-modern status, Therefore, the past of the nation was
codified via- to use Chatterjee’s expression- an appropriation of the popular that is, by
including those values and beliefs that naturally existed in the indigenous
tradition/culture of the country, and which remained unsullied by dictates of ruthless
reason. At the same time, the process of history-writing was itself a disciplinary process
whereby the past of the nation was reproduced in a way to accord it a normalized status.
All negative aspects like vulgarity, coarseness, localism, sectarianism, sexualized
femininity associated with the traditional culture of society in India were sought to be
eradicated from the new codified nationalist history of the country. It is not surprising
then that the nation’s history was built on the identity of an ‘Indian’ tradition that was
explicitly Hindu. All rival traditions like Buddhism, Jainism were appropriated within the
recreated Hindu fold by virtue of being born in the same country, and this incorporation
reflected the element of ‘syncretism’ of Indian tradition. Islam, as a contending classical
tradition, was ‘otherized’ as being of a foreign origin during the course of construction of
a nationalist past.

6. National Project and the Woman’s question

For the nationalists, woman’s question was firmly positioned within the autonomous
cultural realm that was the basis of self-identity of the nation. To repeat an earlier point,
the nationalists had no option other than to accept the dominance of modernity in the
material or outer sphere. It was in the spiritual or inner realm that nationalists assumed
sovereignty from any external domination, and this was precisely because East was
considered superior to the West in spiritual terms. The duality between the material and
spiritual found corresponding references in dichotomies of inner and outer or home and
the world. Family- as opposed to the outer world which was subject to vagaries of
material reality- was seen as a private realm that embodied one’s true identity; it was
reflective of one’s autonomous self. This source of self-identity needed to be preserved
against encroachments by forces of modernity. If the colonized could not escape being
hegemonized by modernity of the west in outer material domain, they had to do so
without compromising on their true, autonomous identity in the spiritual realm. The
complex dialectic between the material and spiritual led to a division of social space into
home and outside world, with corresponding gender roles and a sexual division of labor.
Women as belonging to the essential space of the home, were the repository of values of
the inner, essential cultural sphere. The question of family, its space within the
hegemonic discourse of the nation, the corresponding role of the woman within the
family and simultaneously towards nation-building, her education etc were some
questions that need to be located against this complex exchange between the material and
spiritual worlds. By relegating the question of women within the inner realm of culture,
the nationalists managed to depoliticize it, that is, as Chatterjee says, the nationalists
refused to see women’s question as holding any value in terms of political negotiation
with the colonial state. Resolution, if any, of the so-called women’s question was to be
found only by the nationalists, and that too in keeping with framework of the traditional
values of the indigenous culture. Therefore Chatterjee notes a distinct reluctance on the
part of nationalists and social reformers by the end of nineteenth century, to allow any
colonial intervention in matters of socio-cultural reforms, and especially ones related to
position of women in colonized society.

For the colonizers, the inferior status of women in colonized society was reflective of the
inherent barbarism of traditional culture of the colonized. With the self-assumed role of
imparting ‘civilization’ to the subject population, the British were able to bring to light
the oppressive nature of social customs of the colonized, and also drew justification for
their hold over colonial society on the pretext of reforming the latter by introducing a
proper framework of procedural law and rational methods of governance. The nationalists
on their part saw any effort on the part of colonial rulers to introduce reforms in matters
of indigenous culture as an assault on their private autonomous sphere constituting
essential identity of the nation. As per the nationalist agenda, therefore, the chief question
was concerning the role and conduct of women in changing conditions of the modern
world. For both nationalists and the colonialists, the question concerning the status of
women was much beyond than what was evident at first instance: it was a question of
political confrontation between a colonial state and the so-called ‘traditions’ of a
colonized nation, and this largely determined the stance with which each sought to
resolve women’s issues.

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

question was one that was based on selective modernization. Selective modernization led
to a new patriarchy that was based on reinvention of tradition, and it did not lead to any
substantial transformation in the lives of women of middle class families. For example,
education was encouraged because it enabled cultural refinement in women and helped
them to fulfill their duties within the families in a better way. Women as embodiment of
cultural values of the nation were endowed with the responsibility to keep intact the
sanctity and purity of the inner spiritual realm while men braced themselves to withstand
the assaults of forces of modernity in outer realm of politics and economy.

7. Nation and its inescapable ‘other’

The unfolding of the universal narrative of modern state in India was far from being a
smooth process. Certain inescapable conditions posed as hindrances in its smooth
transition. The conceptualization of a singular ‘national’ community had to look for ways
to deal with pre-existing forms of communities and consciousness that existed among the
colonized subject populations. Peasantry as a community- and often a rebellious one- was
a specific problem which made their absorption in the nationalist anti-colonial struggle
ever important. Peasantry as backward, superstitious and ignorant, unsuited to the
dynamics of modern times was a perception shared by the colonizers and nationalists
alike. Likewise, the identity of the class of peasantry as the trouble-maker because of its
rebellious nature was another image internalized by both the colonialists and nationalists.
Then there was the question of caste. Caste as a marker of the so-called traditional society
in India, represented hierarchy, rigidity and backwardness, which threatened to deny the
country, opportunities of modern self-governance. This was a widely held belief of the
colonizers on the basis of which they justified their on hold over colonial India. For the
nationalists, it was only proper to deny that caste was a core feature of Indian society.
However, it was the institution of caste that made the Indian society essentially different
form the West, and in such a perception, caste as an ideal system based on functional
division of labor that brought order and stability in society was stressed upon. According
to Chatterjee, both positions of the nationalists concerning the caste question were well
placed within the framework of modernity; liberal equality entrenched within bourgeois
modernity called for a condemnation of oppressive caste practices, while the latter
position maintained that caste in its ideal form was not incompatible with principles of
universal modernity. The institution of caste as contributing to maintaining unity and
stability of social order is, in the words of Chatterjee, a synthetic theory of caste.
Synthetic theories of caste naturalize the condition of relation of dominance and
subordination that constitute the principle of hierarchy between numerous castes. By
stressing instead upon the ideology of dharma which determines the unity of mutual
separateness and mutual dependence between jatis, such theories enable a continued
reproduction of the caste system. The construction of a nationalist culture on basis of
such synthetic theories of caste, according to Chatterjee, turns its back against an
immanent critique of caste, which renders futile even formal recourse offered by the legal
framework of bourgeois freedom and equal rights.

As far as the question of peasantry was concerned, the importance of appropriating the
peasantry for rendering a mass appeal to the nationalist movement was recognized more
than ever. However, the structure of peasant politics was way different from that of
nationalist politics, which made such appropriation a difficult process for the nationalists.
Peasant politics as the ‘other’ of the formal realm of national politics with roots in
bourgeois institutional framework, often posed as a challenge before the latter. Therefore,
the nationalists in their approach to the peasants were no different from the colonizers:
the peasants were turned into ‘objects’ of their strategies, with no voice or agency of their
own. This meant that as the peasants were sought to be appropriated within the new
discourse of the nation, they were sheared off any consciousness of their own; any kind
of mobilization among the peasantry was relegated to the cultural sphere, lacking
organization and sense of politics. Peasants were persistently approached by the
nationalists as the population that needs to be controlled and led, even if as a part of anti-
colonial movement. This partly grew out of a deep-rooted sense of suspicion and distrust
that the nationalist leadership harbored for the peasantry, supposedly ignorant and
backward as they seemed to the former. The contours of the domain of bourgeois politics
as adopted by the modernizing elite failed to grasp the specifics of peasant politics and
consciousness. Therefore, as Chatterjee says, the historical narrative of modernity, and
that of the modern state, refused to see the peasantry as active subject of history which
placed considerable challenges before both colonial and nationalist historiographies by its
forms of action and consciousness. The coming into being of a nation in the Indian
context, involved a politics whereby the domain of politics of the peasants was kept
invisible and detached from the concrete political processes, and hence denied any
historical subjectivity.

Chatterjee concludes by saying that the postcolonial state in India remains caught up in a
kind of discursive colonization, in terms that it has completely internalized the logic of
governmental logic of the modern colonial state.