{"title":"国家与民族:两者会相遇吗?","authors":"Partha Chatterjee","doi":"10.1177/23210230221135825","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article traces the separate trajectories of the Indian state and the Indian nation since independence. The state machinery, largely inherited from colonial times, retained its imperial character, which facilitated the integration of the princely states. The negotiated transfer of power also created the myth that the state was prior to the nation whose sovereign people gave itself a new constitution. The Indian nation, on the other hand, was imagined differently in each regional language. Thus, while there was certainly the concept of an Indian nation, it looked different from each linguistic perspective. Further, the idea of the Indian nation was also contested in each region. This article surveys the political process by which these two trajectories were sought to be united, first in the period of Congress dominance until 1967, then under the authoritarian leadership of Indira Gandhi, followed by the relative loosening of the federal structure in the 1990s, and culminating in the present attempt to impose the Hindu majoritarian conception of the nation, nurtured in particular in the Hindi language, on the Indian nation state. Looking at the forces that oppose this hegemonic attempt, the article argues that only a genuinely federal conception of the nation in which each part is given equal respect can effectively challenge Hindutva hegemony.","PeriodicalId":42918,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Indian Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"State and Nation: Shall the Twain Ever Meet?\",\"authors\":\"Partha Chatterjee\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23210230221135825\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article traces the separate trajectories of the Indian state and the Indian nation since independence. The state machinery, largely inherited from colonial times, retained its imperial character, which facilitated the integration of the princely states. The negotiated transfer of power also created the myth that the state was prior to the nation whose sovereign people gave itself a new constitution. The Indian nation, on the other hand, was imagined differently in each regional language. Thus, while there was certainly the concept of an Indian nation, it looked different from each linguistic perspective. Further, the idea of the Indian nation was also contested in each region. This article surveys the political process by which these two trajectories were sought to be united, first in the period of Congress dominance until 1967, then under the authoritarian leadership of Indira Gandhi, followed by the relative loosening of the federal structure in the 1990s, and culminating in the present attempt to impose the Hindu majoritarian conception of the nation, nurtured in particular in the Hindi language, on the Indian nation state. Looking at the forces that oppose this hegemonic attempt, the article argues that only a genuinely federal conception of the nation in which each part is given equal respect can effectively challenge Hindutva hegemony.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42918,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Indian Politics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Indian Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23210230221135825\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Indian Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23210230221135825","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
This article traces the separate trajectories of the Indian state and the Indian nation since independence. The state machinery, largely inherited from colonial times, retained its imperial character, which facilitated the integration of the princely states. The negotiated transfer of power also created the myth that the state was prior to the nation whose sovereign people gave itself a new constitution. The Indian nation, on the other hand, was imagined differently in each regional language. Thus, while there was certainly the concept of an Indian nation, it looked different from each linguistic perspective. Further, the idea of the Indian nation was also contested in each region. This article surveys the political process by which these two trajectories were sought to be united, first in the period of Congress dominance until 1967, then under the authoritarian leadership of Indira Gandhi, followed by the relative loosening of the federal structure in the 1990s, and culminating in the present attempt to impose the Hindu majoritarian conception of the nation, nurtured in particular in the Hindi language, on the Indian nation state. Looking at the forces that oppose this hegemonic attempt, the article argues that only a genuinely federal conception of the nation in which each part is given equal respect can effectively challenge Hindutva hegemony.
期刊介绍:
SIP will publish research writings that seek to explain different aspects of Indian politics. The Journal adopts a multi-method approach and will publish articles based on primary data in the qualitative and quantitative traditions, archival research, interpretation of texts and documents, and secondary data. The Journal will cover a wide variety of sub-fields in politics, such as political ideas and thought in India, political institutions and processes, Indian democracy and politics in a comparative perspective particularly with reference to the global South and South Asia, India in world affairs, and public policies. While such a scope will make it accessible to a large number of readers, keeping India at the centre of the focus will make it target-specific.