PARTHA CHATTERJEE WHOSE IMAGINED COMMUNITY

The resurgence of nationalism has once again become a focal point in global affairs, especially
following the collapse of Soviet socialism, commonly referred to as the collapse of communism.
Leaders and analysts in Western nations frequently emphasize that this resurgence represents a
primary threat to world peace. This shift highlights the need for a phenomenon to be recognized as a
'problem' before it can attract the necessary attention from decision-makers who determine public
concerns.

The re-emergence of nationalism on the world stage has significantly skewed the discourse
surrounding it. During the 1950s and 1960s, nationalism was celebrated as a crucial element of
successful anticolonial movements in Asia and Africa. However, as postcolonial states underwent
processes of development and modernization, nationalism began to be confined to the specific
histories of various colonial empires. These histories, detailed in colonial archives, often
overshadowed the emancipatory aspects of nationalism with revelations of clandestine agreements,
manipulations, and self-serving pursuits. As postcolonial states embarked on paths of development
and modernization, the narrative of nationalism started to shift. Rather than being seen as a unified
and emancipatory force, nationalism became increasingly associated with the specific and often
sordid histories of various colonial empires. The focus moved to the detailed and often unflattering
accounts found within colonial archives, which highlighted numerous instances of clandestine
agreements, manipulations, and the cynical pursuit of private interests. These revelations
significantly undermined the idealistic and liberating aspects of nationalist movements, painting
them instead as vehicles for personal and political opportunism. This change in perspective
contributed to a broader, more skeptical view of nationalism, particularly in the context of
postcolonial states striving for development and modernization. By the 1970s, nationalism had
evolved into an issue of ethnic politics, associated with internal conflicts, wars, and acts of terrorism
within the Third World.

The transformation of nationalist movements from symbols of liberation to sources of conflict is

evident in the disillusionment with the postcolonial leaders who fought against colonialism and
racism but later led corrupt and oppressive regimes. Figures like Gandhi and Ho Chi Minh, once
symbols of nationalistic pride, were either marginalized or ensnared in Cold War politics, further
diminishing the positive legacy of nationalism in Western eyes.

Consequently, contemporary nationalism is often perceived as a chaotic and primitive force

disrupting the stability of civilized life. What was once considered a peripheral issue has now
returned to prominence, seen as a disruptive force emanating from the historical fringes of empires
like the Habsburg, Czarist, and Ottoman. This perception places nationalism in the same category as
other Third World issues that the West finds problematic yet difficult to control, such as drugs,
terrorism, and illegal immigration.
In light of the current media discussions on nationalism, it is noteworthy that not long ago,
nationalism was regarded as one of Europe's most significant contributions to the world. Moreover, it
is often forgotten that the two major global conflicts of the twentieth century, World War I and
World War II, were the result of Europe's inability to manage its own ethnic nationalisms. Whether
seen as a positive or negative force, nationalism originated from the political history of Europe.
Despite modern celebrations of unity and consensus within Europe and the West, there remains a
latent anxiety about whether nationalism has been fully controlled in its place of origin. However,
despite these efforts at promoting unity, there remains a latent anxiety about whether nationalism
has been fully controlled in Europe. This underlying concern stems from the historical memory of
how potent and disruptive nationalist sentiments can be. The resurgence of nationalist movements
and parties in several European countries in recent years has reignited fears about the potential for
these sentiments to destabilize the region once again. This anxiety reflects a recognition that, while
significant progress has been made towards unity, the deeply ingrained nature of nationalism in
European history means it can still re-emerge as a powerful and potentially divisive force.

During this period, area specialists—historians focused on the colonial world—never lost sight of
how nationalism spread to the colonies. It was universally acknowledged that nationalism was a
European import. Debates in the 1960s and 1970s within the historiographies of regions like Africa,
India, and Indonesia centered on the evolution of nationalism and its key proponents. These debates,
often intense and contentious, involved new nationalist historians and those labeled as 'colonialists.'
However, these discussions remained largely within the specialized realm of area studies and
attracted little broader attention.

A decade ago, one area specialist succeeded in rekindling interest in the origins and diffusion of
nationalism within a universal historical framework. Benedict Anderson, with subtlety and originality,
argued that nations were not the inevitable outcomes of specific sociological conditions like
language, race, or religion. Instead, they were "imagined" into existence. Anderson identified key
institutional forms that helped shape these imagined communities, particularly through what he
termed 'print-capitalism.' He posited that the historical experiences of nationalism in Western
Europe, the Americas, and Russia provided modular forms that nationalist elites in Asia and Africa
adapted to their contexts.

Anderson's book has profoundly influenced contemporary theoretical discussions on nationalism,

particularly within academic circles. Contrary to the exotic and often uninformed portrayals of
nationalism in Western popular media, Anderson's theoretical approach treats nationalism as an
integral part of the universal history of the modern world.

The objection raised against Anderson's argument revolves around the notion that if nationalist
movements outside Europe and the Americas are constrained to choose from pre-existing "modular"
forms provided by these regions, then there is little room for genuine imagination or originality. This
perspective suggests that postcolonial societies are relegated to a perpetual state of consumption of
modernity, with their imaginations forever colonized by Western ideas and frameworks. This critique
challenges Anderson's assertion that nationalism is largely an imagined construct derived from
European and American models.
Contrary to Anderson's argument, the objection contends that the most powerful and innovative
aspects of anticolonial nationalism in Asia and Africa were not based on an identity with Western
models but rather on a distinct difference from them. The objection asserts that overlooking this
crucial aspect reduces the complexity and richness of anticolonial nationalism to a mere caricature.
Anticolonial nationalism, it argues, created its own sphere of sovereignty within colonial society,
establishing a division between the material and spiritual domains.

In this view, the material domain encompassed areas where Western superiority was acknowledged,
such as economics, statecraft, science, and technology. Anticolonial nationalists recognized the need
to study and replicate Western achievements in this realm. However, in the spiritual domain, which
represented cultural identity, nationalists asserted sovereignty and resisted colonial intervention.
This distinction allowed for the preservation and development of indigenous cultures and traditions,
even in the face of colonial dominance.

Moreover, the objection posits that the period of "social reform" in colonial societies marked the
emergence of nationalism, rather than its later political manifestations. During this phase, reformers
initially looked to colonial authorities for social change but later resisted colonial intervention in
matters of national culture. This shift indicated the beginning of nationalist sentiments asserting
sovereignty over cultural domains.

In summary, the objection challenges Anderson's thesis by emphasizing the originality and creativity
of anticolonial nationalist movements, which carved out their own spheres of sovereignty within
colonial societies. It argues that nationalism's narrative begins much earlier than the contest for
political power and encompasses the complex dynamics of cultural resistance and identity formation.

The central argument being outlined here critiques Benedict Anderson's thesis on nationalism,
particularly focusing on its application to the context of Bengal. The argument suggests that
Anderson's concept of nationalism being largely shaped by modular forms derived from Europe and
the Americas doesn't fully capture the nuanced and complex transformations within the spiritual
domain in postcolonial societies. By delving into specific examples from Bengal's history, the
argument aims to demonstrate how nationalism has transformed various cultural aspects, thereby
challenging Anderson's thesis.

One area of transformation highlighted is language. While Anderson acknowledges the role of print-
capitalism in the development of modern national languages, the argument posits that the colonial
context necessitated a unique trajectory in Bengal. It discusses how the East India Company and
European missionaries played pivotal roles in the production of printed materials in Bengali,
alongside the gradual displacement of Persian by English as the language of bureaucracy. The
emergence of a bilingual elite in mid-19th century Bengal marked a crucial moment in the
development of the modern Bengali language, as efforts were made to equip it for modern cultural
expression. This narrative underscores how nationalism asserted sovereignty over language, shaping
it into a vehicle for cultural expression distinct from European models.

The argument further explores the realm of literature, focusing on Bengali drama and the novel. It
illustrates how the availability of European and classical Sanskrit models influenced literary
production but also how local performative practices and artistic preferences diverged from
European standards. This divergence created tensions between the aesthetic conventions of
mainstream public theater and European literary forms, challenging the notion of a straightforward
adoption of modular literary forms.

Additionally, the argument delves into the realm of visual arts and education, highlighting efforts to
create modern artistic spaces and a national curriculum outside the purview of colonial influence. It
discusses the establishment of secondary schools and the University of Calcutta as spaces for the
dissemination and normalization of the new language and literature. Moreover, it examines
transformations within the family structure, particularly regarding women's roles, asserting that
nationalist movements in Bengal brought about significant changes while still asserting autonomy
and difference from Western norms.

Overall, the argument suggests that nationalist movements in Bengal and other postcolonial societies
engendered complex transformations within the spiritual domain, challenging simplistic
interpretations that view nationalism as merely a derivative of European and American models.
Through detailed analyses of linguistic, literary, educational, and societal changes, the argument
seeks to present a more nuanced understanding of how nationalism shaped cultural identities in
colonial and postcolonial contexts.

In the first paragraph, the author introduces the notion that the history of nationalism, as commonly
discussed, tends to focus on its political contest with colonial powers primarily in the material
domain, i.e., the external aspects of statecraft and governance. This history, according to the author,
overlooks another dimension of nationalism, one focused on the inner, spiritual domain. This
distinction between the inner and outer domains of nationalism is crucial for the author's argument,
as they suggest that nationalism's sovereignty is first proclaimed in the inner domain before
extending to the outer domain of the state.

The second paragraph delves into the dynamics of nationalism's engagement with the colonial state
in the outer domain. Here, nationalism's initial task is described as challenging the 'rule of colonial
difference' within the structures of the modern state. The colonial state, while introducing modern
state institutions to the colonies, also maintained a system of colonial difference, emphasizing the
alienness of the ruling European group compared to the indigenous population. Nationalism's
historical task, as presented by the author, was to demand the eradication of this rule of difference
within the state's domain.
In the third paragraph, the author elaborates on how the domain of the state gradually evolved into
the national state in postcolonial contexts like India. This domain, shaped by nationalist politics,
adopted the ideological framework of the modern liberal-democratic state. Within this framework,
distinctions between the public and private spheres were emphasized, with the state tasked with
safeguarding individual rights and liberties. However, the author suggests a disconnect between the
ideological framework of the state and the cultural distinctions upheld by nationalist elites in the
inner domain.

The fourth paragraph highlights the tension between the ideological framework of the state, which
emphasizes indifference to concrete differences, and the cultural distinctions cherished by nationalist
elites. While the state aims for neutrality in addressing differences of race, language, religion, class,
and caste, nationalist projects seek cultural 'normalization' within the inner domain. The author
suggests that nationalist projects faced challenges in asserting cultural autonomy within a colonial
regime that espoused universalist justifications rooted in Enlightenment thought.

Finally, the fifth paragraph reflects on the consequences of this tension between the state's
ideological framework and nationalist aspirations. The author argues that autonomous forms of
community imagination within the inner domain are overshadowed by the history and structures of
the postcolonial state. This, the author contends, contributes to the 'postcolonial misery,' wherein
the inability to break free from old forms of the modern state hinders the development of new forms
of community. The paragraph concludes by asserting the need for theoretical language that allows
for the simultaneous consideration of community and state dynamics, which the author suggests is
lacking in current theoretical discourses.

In the first paragraph, Bipinchandra Pal's description of student boarding houses in Calcutta during
his youth is presented. Pal reminisces about the democratic management of these boarding houses,
where decisions were made collectively by the majority of members, managers were elected, and
disputes were settled by a "Court" of the whole house. The use of terms like "republic,"
"democracy," "election," and "Court" to describe these activities reflects a transplantation of
European civic and political concepts onto a distinctly different cultural context. Despite the
incongruity between the material conditions of the boarding house and the terms used, Pal's
language suggests an attempt to depict the self-governing nature of these communities, akin to an
imagined political form of a nation.

The second paragraph reflects on the significance of Pal's language and the intersection of two
discourses of politics. It acknowledges the fusion of parliamentary procedures with communitarian
activities within the boarding house, illustrating the coexistence and interplay of elite and subaltern
politics. The paragraph suggests that both domains have influenced and shaped each other, with
populist elements present in the liberal constitutional order of the post-colonial state. This
understanding challenges the notion of a strict dichotomy between elite and subaltern politics and
emphasizes the need to recognize their mutually conditioned historicities.
In the third paragraph, the author articulates their intention to engage in an exercise to trace the
specific forms that have emerged within the domains of nationalist modernity and fragmented
resistances to that project. This exercise aims to move beyond simply demarcating elite and
subaltern domains and instead examine their intertwined histories and interactions. The author
proposes to explore the limits of the supposed universality of modern power regimes and post-
Enlightenment disciplines of knowledge, challenging assumptions of Indian exceptionalism while also
critiquing Western universalism.

The fourth paragraph outlines the broader objective of the exercise, which is to demonstrate that
claims of Indian exceptionalism and Western universalism are both limited by the contingencies of
global power. The author seeks to unveil suppressed elements within supposedly universal forms of
modern power, paving the way for new conceptualizations of universality that embrace diversity and
differentiation. This endeavor aims not only to envision new forms of the modern community but
also new forms of the modern state, thereby reclaiming freedom of imagination for formerly
colonized peoples.

The final paragraph reflects on the nature of making claims within power dynamics, acknowledging
that claims are inherently contestatory and may produce fragmented discourses. The author
emphasizes the necessity of making no apologies for this fragmentation, suggesting that it is through
contestations and fragmented discourses that new possibilities for imagining the post-colonial world
can emerge.