and other savants have been tried. As early as 1848-49 Carl Marx who formerly defined the word ‘nation’ in its old meaning that it is equal to the state and the people of the state, expressed that “the nation is formed on a certain natural basis (territory, nature of land, climate, racial connection) adapted to a group of men of same tradition, language and same common characters.” Of course Marx and Engels never left any clear scientific definition of the term. Then came the political scientist I. C. Bluntschli who said that a nation is the body in which the community of intellect, feeling and race have become hereditary and which apart from the state union, feels itself united in the community of cultural relations in the matter of language, custom and culture, and differentiates from others as such.
Thus from a pure juristic standpoint the idea of nation began to be looked from a cultural standpoint. Then arose a host of prominent Marxist writers who improving upon Marx tried to arrive at a scientific formula, viz., Otto Paner, who sees the basis of a nation in a certain “natural union,” a community of blood and descent within a certain geographical area, out of which under common conditions of life and fate, a sort of community of fate and character have developed. According to his explanation, a nation is a community of character grown out of community of fate. Bauer's characteristic of a nation agrees with the conception of Marx-Engel; but Kautsky criticises it by saying that the community of language is the binding factor of a nation, as by changing one’s language one changes his nationality and not through change of character! On the other hand, Heinrich Cunow in criticising the other Marxists sums up the definition thus : a nation is based on a community of character and language.
Then comes the historian Ramsay Muir who says that the word “nationality” is difficult to define and that a nation is not the same thing as a race or a state. He says the essence of a nationality is a sentiment, “in the last
