It is no use saying that this claim of the Musselman’s being a nation is an after-thought of their leaders. As an accusation, it is true. The Muslims were hitherto quite content to call themselves community. It is only recently that they have begun to style themselves a nation. But an accusation; attacking ‘the motives of a person, does not amount to a refutation of his thesis. To say that because the Muslims once called themselves a community, they are, therefore, now barred from calling themselves a nation is to misunderstand the mysterious working of the psychology of national feeling. Such an argument presupposes that wherever there exist a people, who possess the elements that go to the making up of a nation, there must be manifested hat sentiment of nationality which is their natural consequence and that if they fail to manifest for some time, then that failure is to be used as evidence showing the unreality of the claim of being. a nation, if made afterwards. There is historical support for such a contention. As Prof. Toynbee points out: — “It is impossible to argue a priory from the presence of one or even several of existence of a nationality; they may have been there for ages and kindled no response and itis impossible to argue from one case to another; precisely the same group of actors may produce nationality here, and there have no effect. (p.37 & 38).
This is probably due to the fact, as pointed out by Prof. Barker, that it is possible for nations to exist and even for centuries, in unreflective silence, although there exists that spiritual essence national life of which many of its members are not aware. Some such thing has no doubt happened in the case of the Musselman’s. They were not aware of the fact that there existed for them the spiritual essence of a national life. This explains why their claim to separate nationality as made by them so late. But it does not mean that the spiritual essence of a national life had 0 existence at all. It is no use contending that there are cases where a sense of nationality exists Ut there is no desire for a separate national existence. Cases of the French in Canada and of the. English in South Africa, may be cited as cases in point. It must be admitted that there do exist sees, where people are aware of their nationality, but this awareness does not produce in them passion which is called nationalism. In other words, there may be nations conscious of themselves without being charged with nationalism. On the basis of this reasoning, it may be used that the Musselman’s may hold that they are a nation but they need not on that account and a separate national existence; why can they not be content with the position which the bench occupies in Canada and the English occupy in South Africa? Such a position is quite a sound position. It must, however, be remembered that such a position can only be taken by way leading with the Muslims not to insist on partition. It is no argument against their claim for partition, if they insist upon it (p.38)
Lest pleading should be mistaken for refutation, it is necessary to draw attention to two things. First, there is a difference between nationality and nationalism. They are two different psychological states of the human mind. Nationality means “consciousness of kind, awareness of the existence of that tie of kinship”. Nationalism means “the desire for a separate national existence for those hos are bound by this tie of kinship.” Secondly, it is true that there cannot be nationalism without the feeling of nationality being in existence. But it is importance to bear in mind that the converse is not always true (p.39}.
(Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings & Speeches, Volume VIII, Pakistan or Partition of India, 1990, Rs.40, Gout. of Maharashtra, Bombay).
