While Walt Whitman's poem “A Passage to India” romanticizes the idea of ​​the merging of Indian and British nationalities, A Passage to India by E. M. Forster realistically explores the emergence of Indian nationalism in opposition to British imperial rule. The novel takes place in post-World War I British India and illustrates the growing tensions between the British Empire and its colonial subjects. India contributed munitions, funds, and troops to the British war effort, and these wartime contributions led to increased calls for India to gain independence from the British Empire. The British did not simply refuse to grant India self-government: they implemented tougher anti-sedition legislation and extended the power of the colonial government. Indians who had played a significant role in the Great War felt neglected, which resulted in vigorous and widespread anti-British sentiment. At the same time, many prominent citizens became critical of the prevalence of nationalism on the European continent. The emergence of nationalism in Europe led to the alliance system that transformed the First World War into a global affair rather than simply a dispute between two countries. Through the antagonistic relationships between the British and Indian characters, Forster portrays nationalism as a source of conflict rather than unity and criticizes the global fixation on nationalism. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Throughout the novel, Forster presents the emergence of Indian nationalism as a response to British imperial control rather than a reflection of a strong Indian identity. Discussing the relationship between England and India with Cyril Fielding, the British headmaster of a local college, Aziz, says: “until England is in trouble we will remain silent, but in the next European war… Then will be our time” (Forster 360). . Aziz's comment reveals the residual post-war anti-British sentiment that taints Indian life everywhere. By calling the First World War a “European war,” Aziz refers to the complex system of nationality-based alliances that dragged the entire European continent into a disastrous conflict. The phrase directly links opposition to “England” and “European wars” with Indian nationalism when Aziz says “our time,” implying that he includes all Indians in his statement. The connection between anti-British views and Indian nationalism reflects the reactionary nature of Indian nationalism. Later in the novel, when Aziz discusses Indian nationalism with Fielding, he says: “Down with the English anyway. This is certain. Clear out, you friends…We [Indians] may hate each other, but we hate you most of all” (Forster 361). Aziz's statement reflects the intense anti-British sentiments among native Indians. He alludes to the power of nationalism by saying that “we [Indians] may hate each other, but we hate you more,” which also suggests that, just as British nationalism unites Wales, Scotland, Ireland and England, Indian nationalism unites all Indians. regardless of the religious divisions between Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. Aziz uses the word “hate” twice to indicate that although the different religious groups actively despise each other, their shared hatred of the English transcends religious divisions. Forster's depiction of reactionary nationalism reveals his contempt for nationalism formed through anti-foreign sentiments. During a debate on Indian nationalism, Aziz exclaims: “India.