The concept of nation-state becomes controversial in a country which lacks religious, cultural and linguistic homogeneity. The classical nation-state came into existence in Europe on the basis of a shared linguistic and cultural heritage and future economic vision. That was not the case in colonised countries in Asia and Africa ... Administratively-unified areas became nation- states when the colonial masters left.

In India ... when the colonial power was about to leave. The Muslim League ... rejected the concept of composite nationalism and advanced the theory of religious nationalism ... for the first time on the Indian subcontinent. Till then, nationalism was associated with shared history, culture, language and ethnicity. And, the theory of religious nationalism was advanced by the secular elite of the Muslim community and not by its religious leadership.

The two-nation theory was born more out of political considerations than religion. It was result of competition for power between the secular elites of the two communities rather than justified by the theology of Islam or Hinduism. The Muslim religious leaders opposed the theory and justified composite nationalism on religious ground. Territory and not religion forms the basis of nationalism, they argued. The most articulate theorist among those who rejected religious nationalism was Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani of the Deoband school.

Among Hindus too it was not the religious leadership which justified the two-nation theory but the 'secular' leadership led by Savarkar and others. Neither the Muslim League nor the Hindu Mahasabha was a religious party. The leaders of Hindu Mahasabha agreed with Jinnah and his Muslim League that Hindus and Muslims were two different 'nations' ... The Hindu Mahasabha, unlike the Muslim League, did not demand partition. It stood for "Akhand Bharat" under Hindu hegemony.

The theory of religious nationalism has been thoroughly discredited. Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani was well aware of the problems and he raised them in his seminal book "Muttahida Qaumiyyate aur Islam" (Composite Nationalism and Islam). There are several Muslim nations today in the post-colonial world. If Islam was to be the basis of nationalism, there should have been only one nation. It is territorially impossible ... there being no contiguity. Even if this argument is theoretically accepted, the question arises: why don't countries which have territorial contiguity - Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and several of the central Asian nations, and several Arab countries - merge into one nation?

No Muslim country will ever take such an idea seriously. An attempt was made during Nasser's time to merge Egypt, Syria and Libya and create a United Arab Republic in the early Seventies. Though all three were overwhelmingly Muslim and Arab the union did not last more than a couple of years, though even the language was the same ...

The question of identity is of primary importance in the formation of a nation. What then is the basis of identity? Identity, most commonly, is based on a shared sense of history, culture and language. Religion may or may not be common. Religion alone cannot provide a viable and cohesive base for common nationalism. In the classical European model too, though Christianity was a common factor Europe was divided into different nations on linguistic and cultural basis. Thus in the formation of a nation a common language, culture and a sense of a shared history play quite an important role.

In the case of Malaysia, Malay nationalism, apart from Islam, plays an important role. Malay identity to them is as important as their religious identity. In fact, it is difficult to make a distinction between their Malay and Islamic identities. This identity is unique to them which they cannot share with other Muslims in Malaysia or elsewhere ...

Political unity and the sense of a common nationhood need not depend on religious unity but on political, historical and cultural factors.

Religious nationalism is not a viable category as the same religion can be, and often is, embraced by different racial, ethnic and cultural groups. Religion, it should be remembered, is a spiritual and moral category whereas nationalism is a political-cum-territorial category. The two should not be confused. A composite culture can be a more viable base for nationalism than religion alone. Religion provides for a common spiritual experience and shared moral and ethical vision whereas nationalism provides for shared political concerns, cultural practices and historical heritage. South Asia had such a common heritage. Its division was brought about by extraneous factors such as British imperial policies rather than by differences of religion. A South Asian confederation is a must for this region to usher in peace and prosperity. (Source: The Hindu, 13 May, 2000)

The manner in which Buddhism was driven out of the country int he eighth century shows the potential of resurgent Hinduism. It is this spectre that haunts the nation when under the guise of the national agenda for governance, the BJP pursues its own hidden agenda. The pity is that parties like the DMK, which at one time successfully opposed the Brahmin hegemony in Tamil Nadu, are unaware of the dangers of collaborating with a party that says.one thing in the morning and does quite another in the evening.-

Bharatputra in The Indian Currents,

20 Sept., 1999