of Shintoism; and fourthly, national, arising from foreign intercourse.

The political causes are mixed up with the existence of the Shogunate and the Japanese system of feudalism. The aims of the leading reformers were partly ambitious, partly democratic. The samurai of the Satsuma clan, for example, were credited with the idea of seizing the reins of government. In order to achieve their main object of union with other clans of the south they went so far to dispel distrust among the other clans as to insist on a promise by the restored Emperor that a deliberative assembly should be formed. Out of this promise arose modern Japanese representative government.

The object of the reformers at first was merely national unity. Soon they recognised that under a system of territorial feudal autonomy such union was impossible. For unity a national system of law was essential to replace the varied types of feudal law. To secure the unity the feudal chiefs of the Satsuma, Choshu, Tosa and Hizen clans publicly surrendered their fiefs to the Emperor. This example, which was speedily followed by others, was a remarkable sacrifice, for a national cause, of the power of the larger clans. Some ascribe the movement to the personal ambition of the local samurai who hoped to benefit under the new régime. What actually caused the movement was an intense wave of patriotic feeling in which selfishness was engulfed by patriotism.

The first form of government was representative of the various clans and guaranteed the position of the samurai; but gradually the samurai lost their privileges, with their special revenues. As it became clear that in the new system there was no place for them the samurai in 1873 were deprived of their privileges. Although the act of deprivation was actually carried out by a government they had helped to establish they did not complain. Many, even before the ordinance of 1873, voluntarily stepped out of their class into the ranks of farmers and tradesmen. They recognised that their swords must be turned into

ploughshares and ungrudgingly gave up their fine heredity for the good of their country. The samurai were, in our Indian parallel, Brahmans of Brahmans, but they stepped down to be Vaisyas, even Sudras, without complaint. Few nations can provide a similar act of noble self-sacrifice. The Japanese Reform movements were faced with dangers similar to those of India. New ideas, new forms of government had suddenly come on the scene, but there was not sufficient basis to build on. The Japanese accordingly began to equip their country in such a way as to fit themselves for their new responsibilities. In the army, navy, railways, education, medicine and fine art Frenchmen, Englishmen, Germans, Italians and Americans were called in to help, their services being necessary only till the Japanese themselves could do the work. Efficiency was called in to protect democracy.

The revival of Shintoism was also an important element in Japanese nationalism. Shintoism, the primitive religion of Japan, had been absorbed in Buddhism about the ninth century, but in the seventeenth century a revival of the old religion took place, led by some illustrious scholars and publicists. The political purpose of this revival was to encourage revolt against the cleavages of feudalism by inspiring the Japanese people with one faith. Shintoism was responsible largely for the 1867 restoration, but later, after its disestablishment, it again gave way to Buddhism.

Shintoism is a type of ancestor worship. The spirits of the dead guide and rule the living. Every action, every thought of the individual is governed by the dead, who therefore must be honoured before the living. The rules of the dead too are immovable and must be rigidly obeyed. Such a religion implies implicit obedience and a spirit of self-discipline. The same spirit of obedience marks the samurai whose absolute obedience to rule and self-sacrifice in front of duty are their finest traditions. Japan thus by religion and tradition was able to overcome a caste system which might have proved a far stronger

disuniting force than was the feudal system in the West. But, as Risley says, Japanese nationalism did not originate in the theoretical sentiment of a literate class which might or might not have worked down to the lower strata of society.

India has much to learn from Japan in self-discipline and efficiency. Risley, in reference to Japanese discipline, says:

To my mind the most striking among the many evidences of the diffusion of the spirit of unity in Japan is to be found in the extraordinary secrecy maintained during the war with Russia. The correspondents of foreign papers, ready to pay any price for news, saw one division after another vanish into space, but no foreigner could find out where the troops embarked, where they would land or what was their ultimate destination. At a time when the issue of the contest hung upon the command of the sea two great battleships were lost by misadventure, and the disaster was concealed until its disclosure could no longer imperil the national existence. These things were known to thousands, but the secret was safe because all classes were inspired by the passionate enthusiasm and self-devotion which the Shinto religion has developed into an instinct, so that the low-born coolie is as fine a patriot as the Samurai of ancient descent.

And we may conclude with Risley-When India can rise to these heights of discipline and self-control India may rival Japan.'

PERHAPS I have expanded unduly the study of Hinduism and nationality, but my study cannot be complete without a reference to Sir Rabindranath Tagore's recent book called Nationalism.' As the finest representative of Hinduism before the world, he speaks with an authority which commands immediate respect. Sir Rabindranath does not confine himself to Indian nationalism. He speaks of nationalism in general and of its bearings on particular states and peoples, but by far the most interesting of all is his application of modern nationalism to India.

Sir Rabindranath is bitterly opposed to nationalism— a fact which reminds one forcibly of the Roman Catholic historian, Lord Acton. To the Roman Catholic the word 'nationality' is taboo. To Sir Rabindranath nationalism is detestable, but for different reasons. To nationalism he ascribes the blame for many of the evils of western culture, and with great eloquence he pleads for India working out her own destiny in her particular way. Western nationalism is political. India's problem is not political; it is social.

This, the keynote of Sir Rabindranath's appeal, is a conclusion from a study of caste, for he speaks of Hindu, not Indian society. We have, it is true, a political problem in India—an imported problem-but before that problem is approached, the social problem must be solved.

India [he says] has never had a real sense of nationalism. From the earliest beginnings of history India has had her own

problem constantly before her; it is the race problem. Each nation must be conscious of its mission and we in India must realise that we are trying to be political, simply because we have not yet been finally able to accomplish what was set before us by our providence.

Nationalism in India, therefore,

is a great menace. It is the particular thing which for years has been at the bottom of India's troubles. And inasmuch as we have been ruled and dominated by a nation that is strictly political in its attitude we have tried to develop within ourselves, despite our inheritance from the past, a belief in our eventual political destiny.

6

This eventual political destiny,' he trusts

...

will not be reached by way of armament firms or by cutthroat commerce. In Europe, where the racial problem has been solved, nationalism has taken the character of political and commercial aggressiveness. For on the one hand they [i.e. the people of Europe] had no internal complications, and on the other, they had to deal with neighbours who were strong and rapacious. To have perfect combination among themselves and a watchful attitude of animosity against others was taken as a solution of their problems. In former days they organised and plundered, in the present age the same spirit continues and they organise and exploit the whole world.

Sir Rabindranath recognises the good of the western contact with India, but

Europe has her past. Europe's strength therefore lies in her history. We in India must make up our minds that we cannot borrow other people's history, and that if we stifle our own we are committing suicide. When you borrow things that do not belong to your life they only serve to crush your life.

India, therefore, must follow her own destiny. Her aspirations are not material like those of the West.

Our ideals have been evolved through our own history and even if we wished we could only make poor fire-works of them because their materials are different . . . as is also their moral purpose. If we cherish the desire of paying our all to buy a