Albert Einstien once said "Nationalism is an infantile disease

In the modern era, nationalism is the major justification for acts of violence against peoples and this has mistakenly been used to claim that the very concept of nationalism is the cause for these problems. Urvashi Butalia suggests that the violence against women during Partition came in large part to nationalism because the role women played in the nationalist conception of honor. This goes also for Chaterjee and his invention of Hindu nationalism as an eternal struggle between Hindus and Muslims. However, this is too simplistic an idea, because nationalism is used as a scapegoat for people’s actions. Even before the advent of nationalism there were great horrors of violence justified though religion (ie, Crusades), loyalty to ruler or dynasty (ie, War of the Roses) and just the belief of superiority (ie, Mongol Raids of 12th and 13th centuries). Nationalism may in ways codified cleavages in society, but itself can not be seen as the primary advocate of genocide. An analogy can be made between religion and nationalism in terms of their usage, though many wars and acts of violence have continued through the centuries justified through religion this does not necessarily mean that religion itself is necessarily wrong or evil, it is just an available justification. This idea of nationalism need not only be a justification for inhumanity, but also can be a cause of humanitarian actions and a source of compassion and aid as seen in the stories of Hindus aiding Muslims, Muslims aiding Muslims and visa versa during riots, war, Partition, and other conflicts. (229-230)

Indian and Pakistani nationalism as with the idea of the culture, and those within these boundaries, is based on the idea of us-them and the concept of the other. Currently in the United States, other facets to nationalism have been able to avoid the denigration and negation of another to form a national identity. In Pakistan and India the very concepts of their respective nationalisms (after partition) emerged largely in opposition to the other and subsequent demonization of the other, which shows the lack of positive definitions of nationalism and further demonstrated the acute observation of the grandmother that, “once people have forgot they are this or that, Hindu or Muslim, Bengali or Punjabi: they become a family born of the same pool of blood (78).”  The necessity in the South Asian case is that nationalism as an ideology has not completely taken hold as people as they are competing between different identities and this competition creates conflict and chaos. A perfect example of successful nationalism is the present US case, where the pluralistic society celebrates cultural differences and encourages freedom of expression but within the unifying concept of American nationalism, however that it is defined. An objection can be raised that in the American case or even the European case, the amount of bloodshed and the fact that two world wars needed to be fought to create the now harmonious nationalist societies shows the destructive force that nationalism has had as an ideology. The response to that is twofold. First even in the emergence of American nationalism the necessity did not exist for another to be demonized as an integral part of defining American nationalism, therefore no eternal conflict was or is necessary as a definition of being an American. Secondly, the mistakes of the Europeans and Americans need not be repeated by not only learning from history, but also re-defining nationalism in other terms other than Western nationalism. Nationalism need not go the same path nor be defined in the same secular sense as Western nationalism, but in the end at least still mimic the harmony and plurality of Western society over the last 50 years.

Gosh portrays Indian and Pakistani nationalism as being problematic for the characters in the book, especially the grandmother who “doesn’t know if she is coming or going. (152)” The problem emerges with the advent of the nation-state in South Asia and the demarcations of Pakistan and India specifically. These national boundaries are the major definition of the “shadow lines”. Shadow Lines are the distortion of existing lines in society. For the issue of West and East Bengal it is choosing the “wrong” or inappropriate line of religion over the Bengali or Indian national identity. Each character deals with these boundaries in their own way; however, the character with the most problems in dealing with nationalism and the nation-state is the grandmother. The grandmother’s initial view of nationalism is the pre-nation state ideology in which the definition is freedom (from oppression such as a colonial power and self-determination), as she said “it was our freedom: I would have done anything to be free. (39)” This later morphs into the Indian nationalist identity and subsequent demonization of the other, this is displayed in her dialogue with the narrator in reference to the 1965 war when she says, “we have to kill them before they kill us; we have to wipe them out. (237).” This clear-cut idea of the Indian identity is challenged when she is told to fill out her place of birth on the forms in which she then “is not able to quite understand how her place of birth had come to be so messily at odds with her nationality (152).” The grandmother is also confused about the abstract idea of the boarder, when she questions her son “if there aren’t any trenches or anything, how are people to know…I mean, what’s the difference?” There seems to be very problematic and destructive parts of her version of Indian nationalism as it relates to the other (West Pakistan). However, on the positive, this nationalism also serves to educate and enhance her pupils through understanding the diversity and plurality of India as seen when she made the students in Home Science cook food that was not a specialty of some part of the country other than her own to teach them “about the diversity and vastness of the country. (116)” But the grandmother does not try to permanently cross these shadow lines and her crossing into Dhaka almost meets her with destruction. This is one pole of characters in the book and their relationship with the shadow lines. For the most part all those who exist within the shadow lines keep within those boundaries (the narrator’s mother and father, Saheb, Maydebi, etc…)

On the other extreme there is Ila. She is unique in that for her there are no lines which is ironic because her father is an Indian diplomat who is a very committed Indian nationalist. It is also with Ila that the second and lesser definition of the shadow lines become evident, the lines separating cultures. Ila creates her own lines as an Englishwoman and as a Marxist (97). She breaks not only the line of nationalist boundaries but also of cultural distinction by marrying Nick and thus her life is trapped in a sad story of loving a cheating man and the games of tit for tat in retaliation. Most of the characters, including the narrator fall between the two extremes of nationalism and the “shadow lines”. Tridib is also one who has major issues with the boarders (shadow lines) and ultimately pays for this viewpoint in the sacrifice of his life (251).  The narrator sums his views with the concept of the “looking-glass boarder (233)” and that these boarders actually serve to bind the two cities of Calcutta and Dhaka closer than before. The last character, which sheds a very symbolic light on the shadow lines, is the uncle left behind in Dhaka (Jethamoshai). He does not believe in “this India-Shindia” and is afraid that if he moves “they will draw another line somewhere. (215)” He is clearly confused about his nationality and still calls the King of England the King-Emperor and starts the national anthem. After partition, his name changes to Ukil-babu and he changes his life in relation to the Muslims. He finally says, “I was born here and I will die here. (215)” He symbolizes the problems with constructing this nationalist identity and the arbitrary creation of the shadow lines and when the grandmother tries to get him to cross the shadow lines, he also is killed.

 In summary, the use of shadow lines is a metaphor for the nationalist boundaries and other seemingly impenetrable lines that humans create around civilization. The theme of the book is that however real these seem they are in many ways arbitrary but belief by their adherents make them real and that crossing them is treachearous. The nationalist tones of the book express the problems with nationalism and constructing a national identity in the post-colonial world, however it is a mistake to take the South Asian problems with implementing and constructing nationalism as an inherent problem with the concept of nationalism itself.