...devotional brotherhoods." 1 This is the first and most essential thing to learn about India — that there is not, and never was an India, or even any...political, social, or religious ; no Indian nation, and especially no " people of India," of which we hear so much. It is a consequence of all this, that...

...Anglo- Indian authority, " this is the first and most essential thing to learn about India — that J there is not and never was an India or even any country...European ideas, any sort of unity, physical, political . . . ." But Anglo-Indian opinion itself is however by no means unanimous on this point. Mr. Vincent...

...school. " This is the first and most essential thing to learn about India," says Strachey,14 "that there is not, and never was an India, or even any...ideas, any sort of unity, physical, political, social and religious; no Indian nation, no ' people of India ' of which we hear so much." With regard to the...

..."Nationalism." An Englishman has said, "This is the first and most essential thing to learn about India — that there is not and never was an India, or even any country...India, possessing, according to European ideas, any 1 Cf. supra, p. 37. sort of unity, physical, political, social or religious; no Indian nation, no 'people...

...to Sir John Strachey, '. . . the first and most essential thing to learn about India — [is] that there is not, and never was an India, or even any country of contained large groups of people who were held together by bonds such as caste and kin, community and...

...baldly put it in his India, published in 1888: ... there is not, and never was an India, or even a country of India, possessing, according to European...any sort of unity, physical, political, social or religious.5 Ainslie Embree, commenting on this remark by Strachey, goes on to say: Strachey and the...

...that "this is the first and most essential thing to learn about India that there neither is nor there was an India, or even any country of India, possessing...Indian nation, no people of India of which we hear so much."31* To him, even the growth of a single Indian nationality was impossible.4" Sir Alfred C. Lyall...

...those who ruled India, wrote: This is the first and most essential thing to learn about India that there is not and never was an India, or even any country...unity, physical, political, social or religious... That men of the Punjab, Bengal, the North-Western Provinces, and Madras, should ever feel they belong...

...As John Strachey put it in his authoritative India, there is not, and never was, an India possessing 'any sort of unity, physical, political, social, or...nation, no "people of India", of which we hear so much'.21 As there could be no self-defined leaders in the public arena of the colonial world, so too...

...geographical expression like Europe or Africa," and that "there is not and never was an India, or even a country of India, possessing according to European ideas any sort of unity ... no Indian nation, no 'people of India,' of which we hear so much." 1 Such a view was anathema to...