National Unity, Nation and Nationalism
by Jayaprakash Narayan
Rapid Learn 2-Minute Revision
Perfect for last-minute revision
2-Minute Revision Video
Video coming soon
In this extract, Jayaprakash Narayan ('Lok Nayak') conducts a sharp, Marxist-influenced analysis of how the concepts of 'nation', 'nationalism' and 'unity' change over time, warning that treating a nation as one harmonious unit is often class propaganda used by the ruling class to hide economic exploitation. Comparing the armed feudal Revolt of 1857 with the peaceful, petitioning Indian National Congress of 1885, he shows that nationalism meant completely different things to different classes, lost kingdoms for the feudal chiefs, and council seats and jobs for the educated middle class. He argues that a 'nation' does not mean the whole population and identifies three great breaches in national unity: the Princes, who became vassals of British imperialism; the Landlords, creations of British land policy loyal to the foreign government; and the Industrialists, who grew under British aegis and preferred gradual concessions to real opposition. For the peasants and workers, the true content of nationalism, freedom must mean the end of exploitation, a 'Peasant Raj' and social ownership of the means of production. Narayan concludes that true national unity and opposition to imperialism can only come through mass class-consciousness, with the lower classes leading the struggle for an equal, exploitation-free society.
Detailed Summary
Detailed Summary Video
Video coming soon
Jayaprakash Narayan (1902–1979), famously known as 'Lok Nayak' (Leader of the People), was a prominent political theorist, freedom fighter and social reformer who led the Socialist movement and the historic JP Movement (1974–77). In this extract from his selected works, he analyses how the ideas of 'nation', 'nationalism' and 'unity' shift over time, warning that treating a nation as a single harmonious unit is often propaganda used by the ruling class to hide economic exploitation.
Comparing 1857 and 1885: the changing nature of nationalism
Narayan compares two events separated by just twenty-eight years. The Revolt of 1857 (the Sepoy Mutiny) was an open, armed, violent struggle for sovereign power led by traditional feudal chiefs and their soldiers. The establishment of the Indian National Congress in 1885 was a peaceful, constitutional act of humble petitioning led by seventy-two middle-class gentlemen, including retired government servants and educated 'baboos'.
Both were national movements, yet nationalism meant completely different things. In 1857 its human content was feudal chiefs fighting to regain their lost kingdoms; in 1885 it was the educated middle class seeking seats on governing councils and more jobs for the English-educated. Narayan notes it would have been comical for the poor peasants of 1885 to join the 'baboos' in demanding elite administrative jobs.
The myth of the 'undivided nation'
Narayan asserts that a 'nation' does not mean the whole population, and 'nationalism' does not represent the interests of all classes. At different historical moments, different classes rise to lead and define nationalism according to their own economic interests.
The Indian nation is made up of diverse, competing classes, princes, landlords, industrialists, bankers, merchants, peasants and workers. The freedom of one class does not mean the freedom of another. Talking of the nation as a single, undivided whole is therefore a dangerous illusion that serves the interests of the exploiters.
The three breaches in national unity
Narayan identifies three major breaches in national unity. First, the Princes: after their defeat in 1857 they realised their survival depended on the British and became permanent vassals of imperialism, helping suppress the nationalist movement to protect their kingdoms. Second, the Landlords: largely creations of British land policy, they stood solidly with imperialism because their properties and privileges were guaranteed by the foreign government, entering politics only to protect their interests.
Third, the Industrialists: the Indian industrial class grew under the aegis of British imperialism and, unlike the strong Western bourgeoisie, was economically and politically weak. Unable to oppose imperialism directly, they preferred gradual reforms and concessions, supporting nationalism only when it aimed to place them in power so they could exploit the country's resources. Narayan says no one with political understanding can talk of national unity with these exploitative classes.
The peasants and workers: the true content of nationalism
For the vast majority, the peasants and workers, nationalism must have a revolutionary meaning. Since India is a land of peasants, true nationalism must mean freedom from exploitation, whether the oppressor is white (British) or brown (Indian), and the establishment of a 'Peasant Raj' where farmers shape the nation's policies. National unity, Narayan argues, will break up the moment the peasantry becomes conscious of its economic destiny and demands an end to exploitation.
For the working class, freedom means the end of wage-slavery through social ownership of the means of production; like the peasants, their ultimate weapon is direct action, and they must become class-conscious to prevent their struggle from being hijacked by the rich bourgeoisie. Narayan concludes that true national unity and successful opposition to imperialism can only be achieved through mass consciousness, with the lower classes leading the fight for a truly equal, exploitation-free society.