nationality. The federalism, or modified federalism, which is to exist will mean the granting of very considerable constitutional powers for the provinces. In a normal federal union education is largely provincial. In the United States, for example, the general supervision of education lies with the Department of the Interior. The main function of this Department is the collection of information and statistics, circulated to the states promote systematisation in education. The real onus of educational organisation lies with the State Superintendents of Education. In India, however, the analogy of the United States Government omits the vital fact that in the United States federalism was a natural evolution; in India very largely it is a super-imposition, an a priori solution to racial, religious and governmental problems. In the United States the fact of unity existed before the act of unity; in India the act of unity exists before the fact of unity. In the Government of India, therefore, lies the fundamental duty of encouraging unity, and as the unity depends on a type of mind produced by western education imparted through the English language, the Government of India must keep to itself a large amount of legislative control in education, the pivot of the new democracy. In this matter it would be fatal to allow the provinces rope enough to strangle the central government. In the first flush of newlyfound power, which, as the Report has decided, is to be provincial, the natural result will be intense interest in provincial affairs or provincial nationalism. From intense provincialism to separatism is not a difficult step. Particularly easy would it be in the case of language where a most natural issue of the new national feeling would be the intensification of the already existing feeling in favour of the complete recognition of 'national' languages as the medium of teaching in all grades. The apparently disproportionate space devoted to the discussion of the element of language will find its justification later when I speak of the constructive side of Indian G nationality. Language, as I hope to show, will not only help to make a united India, but a united India in a united British Empire. Everyone is familiar with Strachey's paradox that the first thing to know about India is that there is no India. In his elaborate analogy of society and the organism Herbert Spencer found in language the connecting link in human society equivalent to the 'nerve sensorium' or head in the human body. In India ideas and institutions, as Spencer might have said, tend to be discrete,' to be units without unity. In a common language, and all that a language means, will be found at least one element of Indian unity, and, if that language be English, an element in the wider unity of the Empire and mankind. CHAPTER III RELIGION: HINDUISM AND MOHAMMEDANISM In the previous chapter I examined the national'unities' of race and language. I proceed now to examine in turn the other bases of nationality, the first being religion. According to Sir Edward Gait's division in the last Census Report (1911) the religions of India may be divided into five main classes: Indo-Aryan, Iranian, Semitic, Primitive and Miscellaneous. Of these the Indo-Aryan branch, which includes Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists, claims 232,570,993 adherents, Hindus being 217,586,892 in number, Sikhs 3,014,466, Jains 1,248,182, and Buddhists 10,721,453. The Iranian (Parsi) religion numbers 100,096; the Semitic, including Mohammedan, Christian and Jews, numbers 70,544,482, of which 66,647,299 are Mohammedan, 3,876,203 Christian, and 20,980 Jews. The Primitive or Animistic religions have 10,295,168 adherents, and minor religions (Miscellaneous) have 37,101. Before proceeding to examine the political bearings of the different religions, I must first mention some notable features in the religious classification of India. One of the most important things to note is that with_the_exception of Mohammedanism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Judaism, no absolute line of religious demarcation can be drawn. There is no definite Hindu creed. The word dharma, which is usually translated religion, refers more to conduct than to belief. The dharma of one individual is different from the dharma of another, not because he believes in this or that god or book, but because he lives in this or that way. It is of little consequence to a Hindu whether a meat-eater believes in Christ or Mohammed. He is a meat-eater, a man from whose hands the Hindu cannot take water. It is of no importance to a high-caste Hindu whether a sweeper professes himself to be a Hindu, or actually is a Moslem or Christian; he is an outcaste, whose touch defiles. Among the lower classes many people who never heard the name of Christ are called Kristans, because they do things which only the Kristan sahibs do. They do not observe the rules of caste, therefore they belong to the casteless Christians. To the Hindu, therefore, the theory of religion is not of the first importance. Provided that the individual concerned observes the proper caste ceremonial, it does not matter which god or how many thousands of gods he worships. Tolerance in matters of religious belief is accompanied by a corresponding intolerance in matters of conduct. This point is of considerable importance in the political study before us. It is popularly believed that Hinduism as a religion is a close corporation, that, as contrasted with Mohammedanism and Christianity, it is non-proselytising, non-missionary. Hinduism is a close corporation, but not in religious belief. It is a close social corporation. There are innumerable millions of actual or possible gods in the Hindu pantheon. The individual worshipper may choose whom he will as his gods, but his social actions are closely circumscribed by the strict rules of his caste. In Hinduism there are innumerable sects, but these sects are so vague that it would be incorrect to speak of Hinduism as a religion of sects. Only a small number of Hindus belong to definite sects, and it is questionable if many of those could tell clearly wherein their particular sect differed from other sects. In the Census of 1901, in one province, only one Hindu out of nine, and in two others, only one in four and one in five, respectively, declared that they belonged to a particular sect. In the 1911 Census the number of persons belonging to a certain sect rose to three times the number recorded in the previous Census, but Sir Edward Gait explains this by the fact that the sect in question happened to be mentioned in the instructions to the enumerators as a type of the answer expected under the heading. When, however, a adopts a programme of social or political change a definite cleavage is established in Hinduism. Thus Buddhism, by renouncing the supremacy of Brahmans, Jainism, by denying the authority of the Vedas, and Sikhism, which, led by Guru Gobind Singh, repudiated many Hindu caste scruples and aimed at political power, have become distinct religions. In India the Buddhists are very few, only about one-third of a million; the balance of the 107 millions lives in Burma. The boundary lines between Jainism, Sikhism and Hinduism, which are usually regarded as distinct religions, are by no means clear. Thus Sikhism and Jainism share with Hinduism the belief in karma and metempsychosis. The Jains also employ Brahmans in domestic ceremonies, but they are limited to twenty-four saints. Many Jains actually call themselves Hindus, but the real Jain is easily discoverable by certain tests, whereas it is almost impossible to lay down tests to discover Рисса Hindus. Hinduism is closely related to both Sikhism and Jainism. In Hinduism itself there is the greatest variation of type; in fact neither Hindus themselves nor scholars who have studied Hinduism have been able to give a universally acceptable definition of Hinduism. When a man tells me he is a Hindu [said Sir Alfred Lyall] I know that he means religion, parentage and country. Hinduism is not exclusively a religious denomination, but denotes also a country and, to a certain extent, a race. . . Hinduism is a matter of birthright and inheritance. it means a civil community quite as much as a religious association. A man does not become a Hindu, but is born a Hindu. ... ... Quoting these remarks, Sir Edward Gait, in the 1911 Census Report, gives a very instructive analysis of the |