Book Reviews

Ashis Nandy, The Illegitimacy of Nationalism, New Delhi: Oxford

University Press, 1994, pp. 94.
Today as we become signatories to the World Trade Organisation
even while vast majority of Indians are shouting for their rights to
their natural and national resources, most academic psychologists
are still insensitive to the irony, paradox, and contradictions within
the modem Indian state. But as along as there are counter-current
swimmers like Ashis Nandy they could not be insulated from rude
awakenings. The very title Illegitimacy ofNationalism, and more so
the contents of this short and compact book, would jolt the readers
and force them to see the complexities, subtleties, and tensions
within the otherwise taken-for-granted, robust, and obvious .

conceptualisation of a nation and the nationalism sprouting from it.

Recently, with the rise in the rhetoric of nationalism, some social
scientists have begun to suspect that nationalism is simply not what
it is made out to be. Under the simple and self-evident exterior of
nationalism there are many tensions. The tensions of reconciling
the particular and the universal, the East and the West, the past and
the future. These tensions are markedly revealed in the discomforts
felt by those social scientists who want to do &dquo;science&dquo; as well as
establish a separate, indigenous identity in the universe of science.
In Illegitimacy of Nationalism Ashis Nandy chooses to address
these tensions within the concept of nationalism, particularly as
these issues were played-out during the Indian national movement.
He does so not only within the confines of a Psychohistorian but
also as a literary and social critic trying to see how some of the most
ingenious minds of India handled these adhesion. How indeed
these ambivalence and ambiguities were turned into novels and
political ideals. He reconstructs the stories of Tagore and lives of
those who influenced Tagore only to reveal to us the need of our
present to understand the past for a better and creative tomorrow.
Nandy is sufficiently postmodem so as not to subscribe to a linear
notion of causation, which would force him to draw a modernists’
straight line between the happenings in the life of Tagore and the

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at Purdue University on June 22, 2015

106 /

characters Tagore created. This would have squeezed out the

creative space and agency of genius. Nonetheless the reader can
see a glimmering of multitudes of &dquo;causes&dquo;, some undeniably

contradictory to each other, which must have gone into the making
of Tagore’s consciousness.
Nandy in the &dquo;Preface&dquo; and the first section shows how the &dquo;idea
of the modem nation-state entered Indian society, in the second half
of nineteenth century, riding piggy-back on western ideology of
nationalism.&dquo; Soon, however we are shown that there was an
ambivalence towards India as a nation-state. Hidden within the
&dquo;nation-state&dquo; but sensed by Tagore and Gandhi, was violence and
tyranny of mono-culturalism, which went against the tenor of Indian
psyche and traditions. Nandy, deftly but briefly draws some of the
distinctions between Tagore and Gandhi’s responses to this Western
invader called nationalism. Without putting them into a dichotomous
oppositions, the author focuses more on Tagore. Tagore is pictured
as a creative literary figure trying to struggle and grapple with the
definitions of nationalism and patriotism in his creative writings. In
his stories there is the agony of a creative genius who wants to
critique nationalism at the time when questioning it was equivalent
to siding with the British. For Tagore &dquo;the ideology of patriotism was
a critique of nationalism and refusal to recognize the nation-state as
the organizing principle of Indian civilization.&dquo; Enmeshed in this
refusal is a rejection of manipulation, social engineering, and linear
progress which is endemic to the very concept of a nation-state.
Tagore is seen as searching within himself and his constructions of
Indian traditions for alternative ways of conceptualising the Indian
nation. One suspects that in some sense Tagore was alone and
perhaps very misunderstood, in this search of his.
Nandy sees in GhareBairethe terrible hidden cost of nationalism
built upon the Western concept of nation-state. Tagore is read as
telling us to appreciate that the social divide-brought about by such
a nationalism is permanent and all pervasive. Bimala loses her

home, Nikhil his own authenticity and because of Sandip’s nationalism

the social fibre is tom by Hindu-Muslim riots. All these because
India is taking into itself a concept of a nation-state which is not the
outcome of its own history. Nandy quickly contrasts his reconstruction
of GhareBairewith Lukac’s critique of the novel. The failure of this
Marxist writer to appreciate Tagore’s search for a different
conceptualisation of a nation is made evident. The message is clear.

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at Purdue University on June 22, 2015

 / 107

Even the left failed to see the hidden tyranny which inevitably was
a consequence of the Western notion of nationalism.
In CharAdhyay we are made to see the terrible psychological
cost of living as a nationalist terrorist. The nationalism that Ela is
made to believe in is inherently linked with violence of technology,
science, and instrumentality. Such extremist nationalists become
effective as well as alienated because of their adherence to Western
rationality and scientific thinking and to nation-state as an ideal of
nationalism. Tagore seems to say that those who follow the path of
such social engineering-nationalism is social engineering-would
invariably become victims and become alienated for Indian tradition.
The political and cultural consciousness of the Indian people is
shown as being irreversibly altered by the new mode of resisting
imperialism. Revolution too is wedded to the notion of progress
and social engineering, which, in a deeper sense, is against the
Indian tradition. Such struggle for freedom ends in new bondage.
Come revolution and we would have strawberry and cream. But I
do not like strawberry and cream. Come revolution we would have
strawberry and cream whether you like it or not: It is here that the
notion of sacrifice is addressed. Fannon’s understanding of violence
of self-sacrifice is contrasted with that of Tagore’s. Tagore seems to
suggest the self-sacrifice, which acknowledges and follows the
dissolution of the dichotomy of self and other is dissolved, is a way
of recovery of selfhood. But for Fannon who maintains the subject-
object dichotomy, violence and self-sacrifice is seen as dehumanising
both in its cause and consequence.
In Gora, where the political choices become psychological
choices, Nandy shows us how harking after modem, progressive,
and scientific ideas fails to come to grips with pluralities of life. This
harking is nationalism committed to nation-state and all its
conglomerates. But like Gora, those who genuinely struggle for
nationalism are not aware of the trap which makes for a tragedy.
Hence, one can be a nationalist but not necessarily partriotic! Gora,
the nationalist , is contrasted with Anandamayi who represents
Indian-ness unaffected by masculinity of nationalism. She is tolerant,
plurality, and a re-affirmation of universal values of the Indian
civilisation. One can see that there may be non-resident Indian
nationalists, but more importantly there is a real possibility of
resident non-Indian nationalists too. Gora is contrasted with Kipling’s
Kim. Kim tries to overcome the fear of the Indian-ness by becoming

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at Purdue University on June 22, 2015

 108/

a true &dquo;Rajwala&dquo;, whereas Gora slowly and surely enlarges his self
and accepts his outsidemess within the plurality of Indian tradition.
All the characters, events, and plots of the three novels of Tagore
seem to read as a text. They read as the tragedy of India accepting
the Western notion of history, progress, and nation-state as the re-
organising principle of Indian Self-definition. This was more
distressing for Tagore because all this was happening as a part of
the genuine struggle for freedom from British imperialism. Thus
nationalism became a classic case of identifying with the enemy, of
being tied to the opposite and nationalists were condemed to do
exactly what they had initially opposed. The politics of liberation
had become the politics of a new bondage. How indeed Tagore
must have suffered with the realisation that victory of nationalism
was victory of the West over Indian civilisation.
In the third section titled &dquo;Lives&dquo;, Nandy goes to outline the life
story of Brahmabandhab Upadhyay. The author shows how some
of the inspirations for the characters in Tagore’s novels could have
come from this multi-faceted and very articulate visible personality.
In Upadhayay’s life we see mirror images of Gora, Sandeep, etc.,
but it would be blasphemous to suggest that Tagore merely took
his characters from one source. No author does. The lives of other
friends, relatives, and more importantly, characters from novels
, also went into Tagore’s characters. Tagore’s attitude towards the
authority of British Imperialists is characterised as having some of
the glimmering and positive elements of child-like play blended
with anti-imperialism and seriousness. This, Tagore might have
acquired from his interaction from his Joyti da, and the fact that his
father was absent from home and young Tagore had to deal with
a fragile authority of servants. The game of nationalism is serious,
but not as serious as a life-and-death question. Nationalism of
Tagore has space for multitudes of responses and possibilities of
true heroism, freedom, and creativity. It is in this space of
patriotism free from the hegemonic notion of a nation-state that
Tagore locates cultural plurality-the real strength of Indian
civilisation.
While exploring the struggle of Tagore for defining and shaping
the consciousness of nationalism, Nandy in the last chapter, draws
the reader to an important moral issue which Tagore faced, and to
a large extent an Indian faces even today. Can one allow the
subversion of morality in the public space of politics? Can we give

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at Purdue University on June 22, 2015

 / 109

or put on hold moral and ethical issues for the sake of attaining
nationalism? The book seems to hint that Tagore was trying to say
&dquo;No&dquo; to this
question. Tagore, without suggesting that others like
Gandhi did the opposite, was saying that patriotism holds on the
cultural and civilisational morality, even when faced with a choice
between morality and nationalism. Such commitment to Indian
civilisation and tradition would/should distill a new conceptualisation
a nation. Tagore always critiqued nationalism for its moral bankruptcy.
At the same time, along with Gandhi, Tagore critiques the Indian
social realities too. His nationalism is not the one of going back or
forward to the past. It is the construction of the present within and
with morality and character of Indian-ness. Both Tagore and
Gandhi foresaw the dangers of mass politics as it broke the fragile,
morally sensitive nationalism. For Tagore, and for India today,
patriotism should be sufficiently unsure, open, and a morally
sensitive plurality. It can be arrogant and certain of truth. For sure,
such a fragile patriotism can not transmitted or be taught quickly,
and surely patriots can not be mass produced. Yet it is this fragile
and consequently precious patriotism that is best suited for India
and is authentically Indian.
Those who read Nandy regularly cannot help but notice that some
notes of Nandy’s requiem for science/modemity may have been
derived from or projected on to Tagore. However, clearly Tagore
may have seen our today, it is we who have actually faced the
dangers of nationalism. What may have been shadows for him have
become substantial realities for us today. At the same time, India and
Indian-ness are so vitiated with the notions of nation-state and its
conglomerates of progress, developments, and science that any
search for an Indian concept of a nation that is, sufficiently
distinguishable from the Western notions is a formidable challenge.
It is to be hoped that this book would inspire contemporary social
scientists, not to trivialise the rich insights of Nandy by evolving
operational measures of nationalism and patriotism, but to make
efforts to enrich these initial probings, by delving into the past and
the future. This would involve dealing with basic issues, such as the
future course and direction of social sciences and the legitimacy of
using methods which stem from the belief in the notion of one
coercive, hegemonic, and objective truth. This kind of belief, in fact,
is the basis for concepts such as &dquo;a nation-state&dquo; and &dquo;progress&dquo;. This
reviewer shares the author’s hope that time may still vindicate

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at Purdue University on June 22, 2015

110/

Tagore’s vision of nationalism even while the opposite seems to

prevail now.

Yoganand Sinha

Yoganand Sinha is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Psychology, University of

Allahabad. His areas of interest include philosophy of science and psychological
factors related to social change and rural development.

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at Purdue University on June 22, 2015