National Unity, Nation and Nationalism Summary
Jaya Prakash Narayan (1902-1979) was popularly known as J.P. He is one of the most prominent leaders and thinkers produced by India in modern times. Although he never sought power for himself, he plays a major. role in the freedom movement. He also played active role in the Socialist and Sarvodaya movements. In the last phase of his life, Jaya Prakash Narayan started movement against authoritarianism which is popularly known as J.P. movement. He died in the year 1979.
National Unity, Nation and Nationalism Written by Jayaprakash Narayan Introduction to the Chapter
National Unity, Nation and Nationalism Summary in English
In the present essay, Jaya Prakash Narayan asserts the importance of maintaining national unity to resist foreign rule. He holds the very term national unity as misnomer, as all elements of the nation were not interested in the freedom struggle. According to him, only the masses had any real interest in the anti-imperialist struggle and therefore, the need of the hour was to organize the masses to rise against the forces of imperialism.
In the history of our country, 1857 are written in red letters. While in 1857, Sepoy Mutiny was started by Mangal Pandey and in 1885, Indian National Congress was set up. The aim behind these two events was to start India’s struggle for independence and to give it momentum. 1857 saw an open and armed struggle for sovereign power and 1885 saw an act of humble petitioning. The establishment of Indian National Congress can be said to be “the beginning of the formulation of India’s demands.” Nationalism means different things at different times. The difference lies not only in its objectives but in its human content as well. In 1857, feudal chiefs and their soldiers were the ‘nationalists’. In 1885, seventy-two persons from middle classes including retired government servants became ready to carry on India’s struggle for independence.
Neither the feudal chiefs who fought in 1857 nor the baboos who founded the Congress in 1885, comprised the whole nation. At the same time, they did not stand for all the classes and groups within it. It would have been comic for the peasants in 1885 to have ‘united with the baboos in demanding ‘seats’ in the councils and more jobs for the English-educated. Thus, we see that a ‘nation’ does not in reality mean the whole nation, nor does nationalism comprise the interests of all the classes and groups within it. Different classes constitute the ‘nation’ and give expression to nationalism at different times. What class or group would play this role at a given time depends upon the circumstances of history and the structure of society.
The Indian nation is made up of princes, industrialists, bankers, merchants, peasants, labourers etc. Nationalism does not mean the same thing to all these classes. The freedom of one of them is not the same as the freedom of the other. Nor the manner in which they fight for freedom, is the same for all. For princes, freedom means complete soverignty which can be won on the battlefield. The Landlords of India are largely the creation of British imperialism. Big Landlords have always stood with imperialism. Nationalism has no meaning to these people they want jobs in higher services. They also want to maintain balance of power by getting political power. Nationalism to industrialists means complete freedom to exploit the country’s resources to build up their fortune. For doing this, they require a great deal of control over the state. The Indian industrial class has grown up under the protection of imperialism. It is completely at its mercy economically and politically. It has no other foreign support.
Thus firstly, Indian industrialists are unable to oppose imperialism. Secondly, they would get satisfied with facilities for economic development. Thirdly, they would support nationalism only when it aims at placing them in the seat of power. Here is the third breach in national unity. Further, India is a land of peasants. If Indian nationalism has any meaning, it should mean the freedom of the peasants. It is freedom from exploitation whether this exploitation is carried on by a brown or a white skin. As for the method of struggle, peasants have always known direct method. Such action is dangerous for the foreign oppressor as for the native. It is necessary in the national interests that peasants do not become conscious of their economic and political destiny. The worker’s freedom means freedom from wage slavery by social ownership of means of production. Like the peasants, the workers weapon too is direct action. They too must not become class conscious, so that national unity may be maintained.
In this way nationalism downs not mean the same thing to all the classes within the nation. national unity means that th lower classes should fight imperialism not to secure their own freedom ecploitation but to enthrone the landed magnates. Thus, national unity can be maintained only at the cost of mass consciousness.
0 Comments