Thus today the independent languages of several provinces of India are hastening them in the development of local nationalities and differentiation from the rest.
That community of language is an important bond in the formation of nationality cannot be gainsaid, and in India of today it is a potent factor. Another important factor in Western Asia in this matter is religion. In India it plays its usual West-Asiatic rôle and works havoc in the national question. In present-day India these two important factors are competing with each other. The question for India today is: whether the Indian nation will be evolved out of a community of fate giving rise to a community of character—an Indian national character coupled with community of language to be created; or if the all-Indian unity is not possible, will the Indian nationalities be formed based on the above factors or attempt will be made to base them either on language or on religion?
Today though India is under the wheel of a common fate, a common political, historical and cultural development is going on which is developing in embryonic form the type which is “politically an Indian;” yet an Indian nation is far from being in the growth. The apparent differences of language and religion are hindering the growth of solidarity. Muir is not right when he said that “sentiment” is the thing. In our discussion above we have seen that a sentiment of kind and consciousness is the result and not the cause of solidarity. The sentiment to become a nation does exist in India, but the other factors are as yet wanting.
Taking the hindering factors one by one, we see that religion in spite of its potent charm can never become the binding factor in the Indian nation-building, or in the provincial nation-building. Its influence has to be eliminated from the civic life of India. Yet a subtle attempt is being made to build nationalities in India on the basis of this factor. Today the Mohammedans are trying to build up an Indian-
