Nationalism is a modern political idea that links a people to a shared territory, culture, history, and destiny, and claims that this collective should govern itself through its own sovereign state. More than a sentiment of love for one’s country, nationalism is a structured ideology that produces particular ways of thinking about identity, belonging, power, and citizenship. It shapes how societies define insiders and outsiders, what they cherish as national heritage, and how they mobilize populations around political projects. In India, nationalism developed in the historical context of colonial domination, economic transformation, and social conflict, giving rise to competing interpretations of what the nation was and who it represented. Two major sociological perspectives on Indian nationalism come from A. R. Desai and Partha Chatterjee, whose analyses highlight different dimensions of power, class, and cultural politics in the making of the nation. A. R. Desai, a leading Marxist sociologist, approached nationalism as a historical product of capitalist development under colonial rule. For Desai, Indian nationalism cannot be understood merely as an awakening of a timeless national spirit. Instead, it emerged from concrete economic and social changes introduced by British colonialism—such as the spread of modern industries, integration into global markets, new administrative structures, and Western education. These transformations disrupted traditional agrarian and feudal relations and created new classes, particularly the bourgeoisie, intelligentsia, professionals, and an urban middle class. According to Desai, it was these groups that primarily led the nationalist movement. From this perspective, nationalism in India was largely a bourgeois movement. The rising Indian capitalist class sought political independence not to overturn inequality but to secure better conditions for its own economic growth. They opposed colonial policies that restricted indigenous enterprise, controlled markets, and extracted surplus, while simultaneously relying on the masses for support. This created what Desai described as a fundamental contradiction: the movement used language about freedom, equality, and democracy, but it never fully challenged class hierarchies or addressed the structural exploitation of peasants and workers. Desai emphasized that the leadership of the nationalist movement adopted strategies that prevented radical transformation. Rather than encouraging revolutionary struggles,