that come for consideration as the fundamental bases for nationality are : community of character and language. Here the question comes what is meant by a character of a people? It is that trait which is evolved out of a common historical fate. Otto Bauer says that the basis of nationality is community of blood and descent within a geographical area out of which through a common condition of life and fate, a sort of community of fate and culture has developed. But a community of blood and descent though desirable, yet is not necessary for a common basis. Moreover one must be careful regarding the question of a “common race.” A physical anthropologist finds difference of racial types amongst the past and present races of mankind, or in any given group of men! A social psychologist may say that in order to evolve a common character a racial identity (i.e., community of blood and descent) is not necessary; rather common milieu, training, thought, evolution are the requisites. Thus a basis of a nation is the community of character growing out of a community of fate.
Applying this law to India, even if we consider the question of blood and descent, it will be foolish on the part of that man who maintains that the Indians are very far from each other in the matter of blood and descent. Again, the difference of religion does not imply the difference of origin. The Mohammedans of the Panjab are not distinct from their Hindu neighbours, the same in Bengal; the Christians of South India are not different from their Hindu neighbours. A community of blood and descent does exist in India; and this community of affinities have a common fate, that is, a common cultural, social and historical evolution in the past and in the present.
But language difference does play a big rôle in modern India. The differences of physical characteristics and dialects as they exist to-day in India, existed in the time of the imperial Mauryas and Guptas. Yet the common
