European scholars, like Elie Kedourie, have generally held the view that nationalism was nineteenth-century European invention, "wholly" developed in Europe, and that nationalisms in Asia and Africa were a "reaction" against European domination. They suffer from "artificiality." Prof. Anthony Parel, A professor of Political Science in the University of Calgary Canada rmearks on this statement. And I quote some excerpts from his analysis: He syas: It is clear that judgements like this do not apply to Swami Dayanand. He is the most authentically Indian of all Indian nationalists. If Dayanand arrived at a conception of modern nationalism without any direct influence from the West, it raises an interesting question about the nature of modern nationalism itself. According to modern thought, a nation is a people that is conscious of its historical identity, its cultural uniqueness, its common language, its common territory, and its claim to self-rule. Swami Dayanand's Conception of nationalism meets all these requirements, and the astonishing fact is that he had arrived at it by about 1875, a decade before even the Indian National Congress was founded and people started saying that India is a nation in the making. Dayanand had arrived at a sound notion of modern nationalism by his own reflexions and that without the study of any western writer on the subject. "Regeneration of India is difficult to achieve", he believed, "without having one language, one faith, and one aim." If Indians were to emerge as a modern people, they had to do so as the inheritors and the continuators of their ancient religion (the Vedic religion), they must have one scripture (the Vedas), one language (Hindi), and one racial consciousness (being Aryan), and one territory (Aryavarta), and one supreme political authority. Vedas, and the culture founded on the Vedas, were the roots of Indian identity was Dayanand's most important nationalist contribution Restoring the spirit of the Vedas, he politicised Hinduism in a subtle way and to a degree, no other Indian thinker had done before or after him. Sri Aurobindo understood this aspect of Dayanand's thought when he stated that the restoration of the Vedic spirit included the restoration of the idea of nationalist politics. "Swami Dayanand as a restorer of Vedicism included the theory of politics in his scope and revealed the intensely national character of Hindu religion and morality." Prof. Parel says: Related to the notion that the Vedas were the sources of Indian national identity was the notion that India was the land of the Aryans, and that Indians were Aryans. The adoption of the term Arya to refer to Indians was itself a highly significant nationalist act, since such terms as 'India' and 'Hindus' had a Persian and Greek etymology. Swami Dayanand was serious about this nomenclature can be seen from the directive he issued to his followers to register themselves as 'Aryans' in the 1881 census. Writing to Daya Ram on 30 November 1880 he stipulated that "In the coming census the following details should be given like this: Religion, Vedic; nationality, Arya......." Dayanand was the first major Indian thinker to realise that a nation needs a common language. He demonstrated the sincerity of his personal conviction by attempting to revive Sanskrit as the common language of India. He later abandoned the idea in favour of Hindi, which he adopted as his common national language. Satyarth Prakash is a nationalist work in a two-fold sense: in its contents and in its linguistic format. A born Gujrati, he adopted Hindi as his second mother tongue, and thereby set the pattern for the development of linguistic nationalism in a multi-lingual nation. He was able to transcend his natural feeling for Gujrati for the sake of a greater national cause he gave prominence to Hindi. With respect to the theory of self-rule, an indispensable aspect of nationalism, Dayanand was far in advance of the Indian nationalism of his day. He clearly saw that foreign rule, even when 'imbued with parental justice and mercy', could not be a substitute for self-rule. "Whatever may one do, the indigenous rule is always the best. A foreign government cannot be perfectly beneficial even when it is free from religious bias, race prejudice, and imbued with parental justice and mercy. Lastly I would say, though Swami Dayanand was proud of India's heritage and confident of India's ability to renew herself, he was not blind to her present weaknesses and to their causes. A self-critical attitude was part of his nationalist thought. He made such criticisms in his lectures and books from time to time. A nation loaded with weakness can never rise to its original height.
Study this topic and jump into adaptive practice.
European scholars, like Elie Kedourie, have generally held the view that nationalism was nineteenth-century European invention, "wholly" developed in Europe, and that nationalisms in Asia and Africa were a "reaction" against European domination. They suffer from "artificiality." Prof. Anthony Parel, A professor of Political Science in the University of Calgary Canada rmearks on this statement. And I quote some excerpts from his analysis: He syas: It is clear that judgements like this do not apply to Swami Dayanand. He is the most authentically Indian of all Indian nationalists. If Dayanand arrived at a conception of modern nationalism without any direct influence from the West, it raises an interesting question about the nature of modern nationalism itself. According to modern thought, a nation is a people that is conscious of its historical identity, its cultural uniqueness, its common language, its common territory, and its claim to self-rule. Swami Dayanand's Conception of nationalism meets all these requirements, and the astonishing fact is that he had arrived at it by about 1875, a decade before even the Indian National Congress was founded and people started saying that India is a nation in the making. Dayanand had arrived at a sound notion of modern nationalism by his own reflexions and that without the study of any western writer on the subject. "Regeneration of India is difficult to achieve", he believed, "without having one language, one faith, and one aim." If Indians were to emerge as a modern people, they had to do so as the inheritors and the continuators of their ancient religion (the Vedic religion), they must have one scripture (the Vedas), one language (Hindi), and one racial consciousness (being Aryan), and one territory (Aryavarta), and one supreme political authority. Vedas, and the culture founded on the Vedas, were the roots of Indian identity was Dayanand's most important nationalist contribution Restoring the spirit of the Vedas, he politicised Hinduism in a subtle way and to a degree, no other Indian thinker had done before or after him. Sri Aurobindo understood this aspect of Dayanand's thought when he stated that the restoration of the Vedic spirit included the restoration of the idea of nationalist politics. "Swami Dayanand as a restorer of Vedicism included the theory of politics in his scope and revealed the intensely national character of Hindu religion and morality." Prof. Parel says: Related to the notion that the Vedas were the sources of Indian national identity was the notion that India was the land of the Aryans, and that Indians were Aryans. The adoption of the term Arya to refer to Indians was itself a highly significant nationalist act, since such terms as 'India' and 'Hindus' had a Persian and Greek etymology. Swami Dayanand was serious about this nomenclature can be seen from the directive he issued to his followers to register themselves as 'Aryans' in the 1881 census. Writing to Daya Ram on 30 November 1880 he stipulated that "In the coming census the following details should be given like this: Religion, Vedic; nationality, Arya......." Dayanand was the first major Indian thinker to realise that a nation needs a common language. He demonstrated the sincerity of his personal conviction by attempting to revive Sanskrit as the common language of India. He later abandoned the idea in favour of Hindi, which he adopted as his common national language. Satyarth Prakash is a nationalist work in a two-fold sense: in its contents and in its linguistic format. A born Gujrati, he adopted Hindi as his second mother tongue, and thereby set the pattern for the development of linguistic nationalism in a multi-lingual nation. He was able to transcend his natural feeling for Gujrati for the sake of a greater national cause he gave prominence to Hindi. With respect to the theory of self-rule, an indispensable aspect of nationalism, Dayanand was far in advance of the Indian nationalism of his day. He clearly saw that foreign rule, even when 'imbued with parental justice and mercy', could not be a substitute for self-rule. "Whatever may one do, the indigenous rule is always the best. A foreign government cannot be perfectly beneficial even when it is free from religious bias, race prejudice, and imbued with parental justice and mercy. Lastly I would say, though Swami Dayanand was proud of India's heritage and confident of India's ability to renew herself, he was not blind to her present weaknesses and to their causes. A self-critical attitude was part of his nationalist thought. He made such criticisms in his lectures and books from time to time. A nation loaded with weakness can never rise to its original height.